Judges have to work for public respect
What you need to know:
- The public may not know what it means when a court finds an accused person “not guilty”, as they often assume the court is saying the person is innocent.
- Public perception of how judges project themselves does affect public confidence in the Judiciary. But, of course, we must also accept what judges say in court is more important.
All day on Wednesday, I was engaged in a learning experience on “Communication in the Judiciary” organised by the Office of the Chief Justice.
It was clear from the encounter that the Judiciary’s directorate of public affairs and communication is keenly aware of the need to work hard to gain and retain the respect and confidence of the public. It was clear they believe judicial communication is important in gaining and retaining that public trust.
They might just as well. Article 10 of the Constitution requires all state institutions, including the Judiciary, to be transparent and accountable and to allow public participation. It’s also clear judicial communication, transparency, accountability and integrity are interrelated.
Judges, it’s true, gain public confidence mainly through communication of what, how and why they do what they do. At the same time, the greatest problem judges face is ignorance.
The public is not sufficiently aware of how the courts function, or the role of the courts. The public may not even know what it means when a court finds an accused person “not guilty”, as they often assume the court is saying the person is innocent.
The legalese used in judgments is also a major communication barrier. But the courts are slowly embracing plain English.
The public understanding of how the courts function has also, in many ways, been shaped over the last three decades by Vioja Mahakamani, one of the most popular television shows. The KBC comedy is not a reality court. It’s an over-dramatisation that distorts the legal system and people’s perception of how the courts work.
DISTORTED IMAGE
With such actors as the hilarious Peter Sankale aka Alexander Josephat, the staid chubby-cheeked Gibson Mbugua (prosecutor), the preachy Lucy Wangui (magistrate), and the court buffoon Alphonse Makokha, the show is unpresentative of the real world of court trials.
The distorted image is worsened when a few individual judges thrust themselves into the public domain either through their own personal court suits or media appearances.
Because of them, the public may be forgiven for thinking judges are a weird lot. I’m advised, though, the least said about these few judges the better.
Perception is everything. Public perception of how judges project themselves does affect public confidence in the Judiciary. But, of course, we must also accept what judges say in court is more important. All the same, their public appearances do matter.
But when all is said and done, the Judiciary has come a long way in fostering public communication and confidence-building. They now have a director of Public Affairs & Communication, Naim Bilal, who has introduced an e-magazine to enhance internal communication, among other initiatives. Internal communication promotes external communication.
In addition, the Judiciary has established several public engagements including the Judicial Marches, an outreach programme to inform the public on how our courts work, and customer care desks.
Chief Justice Willy Mutunga has also courageously engaged the media. Yet, the Judiciary needs to be more assertive.
