The strange disease that afflicts judges
What you need to know:
- In India, judgeitis is often about showing how clever one is. Subas Mahto, in his Obiter Dicta and its Application in the Judicial Process, says Indian judges are eager to exhibit their learning. They are prone to write more about philosophy — as they see it — though not necessary to decide a case.
- On May 20, 2002, Chief Justice Bernard Chunga gave us probably the most memorable case of judgeitis (outside the courtroom). He angrily reacted to a report by Commonwealth legal experts on the corruption in the Kenyan Judiciary.
- Judges have a respectable name for sounding off. It is obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta), which is Latin for “things said by the way”. Often, judges simply call it obiter — anything that does not form the basis or reason for a judgment.
The dictionary meaning of “sounding off” is speaking something loudly, complaining, speaking out of turn. It’s expressing an opinion forcefully. In court, judges and magistrates can, and do, sound off about whatever they want.
Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor (head of the British judiciary) in 1970-1974 and 1978-1988, calls this tendency judgeitis. He describes it as “pomposity, irritability, talkativeness, proneness to obiter dicta (a statement not necessary for the decision of a case), a tendency to take short cuts.” A judge, he says, may lose his temper and suffer from a bad case of judgeitis and self regard.
An American super-lawyer, Samuel Stretton has another name for judgeitis — “black robe disease” (American judges wear black robes). He defines judgeitis as “a judge who thinks he or she is so important that he or she can act unilaterally or arbitrarily.”
In India, judgeitis is often about showing how clever one is. Subas Mahto, in his Obiter Dicta and its Application in the Judicial Process, says Indian judges are eager to exhibit their learning. They are prone to write more about philosophy — as they see it — though not necessary to decide a case.
In Kenya, particularly bad cases of judgeitis usually afflict newly appointed judges, though it is not absent among the older judges. On May 20, 2002, Chief Justice Bernard Chunga gave us probably the most memorable case of judgeitis (outside the courtroom). He angrily reacted to a report by Commonwealth legal experts on the corruption in the Kenyan Judiciary.
“They are experts for what, on what and about what?” he fumed at a press conference. “A visitor cannot come here, stay at a lavish five-star hotel and tell me that my judicial system is at crossroads after only two days of entertainment.”
COMMONWEALTH EXPERTS
The Commonwealth experts stayed for two weeks and their assessment was drawn from wide consultations with the public, civil society, Attorney-General and judicial officials.
Judges have a respectable name for sounding off. It is obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta), which is Latin for “things said by the way”. Often, judges simply call it obiter — anything that does not form the basis or reason for a judgment.
Obiter is letting off steaming, an incidental remark or observation, a passing comment. It is the judge blowing his top, scolding, chewing one of the parties in court or somebody or institution outside the court. Or the judge could simply be philosophising (to appear learned).
One of the most notorious sounding off or judgeitis that I have ever come across in Kenya was that of a magistrate. He was deciding a case in which a woman was claiming breach of promise to marry after staying with a man, child-less, for several years. “You did not work hard enough (to produce children),” said the self-assured magistrate. Case dismissed.
Judgeitis is like a TV news anchor telling you what he or she thinks of the news instead of giving you the news or engaging in irrelevant or silly talk instead of moving on to give you the news.
