The Global Corruption Report 2007 concludes that a corrupt judiciary erodes the international community’s ability to prosecute transnational crime and inhibits access to justice and redress for human rights violations. It undermines economic growth by damaging the trust of the investment community, and impedes efforts to reduce poverty.

Judicial corruption usually falls into two categories: political interference in the judicial process by the legislative or executive branch, and bribery.

The importance of an independent judiciary cannot be overemphasised. Everyone loses when justice is corrupted, particularly the poor, who are forced to pay bribes they cannot afford.

Transparency International’s latest global survey of attitudes towards corruption reveals that in more than 25 countries, at least one in 10 households had to pay a bribe to get access to justice.

Corruption in the judiciary includes any inappropriate influence on the impartiality of judicial proceedings and judgements and can extend to the bribing of judges for favourable decisions, or no decision at all.

Judicial corruption includes:

• the misuse of judicial funds and power (ie. nepotism or manipulation of contracts for court construction and equipment)
• biased case allocation and bias in other pre-trial procedures (ie. court clerks bribed to "lose" files and evidence)
• influence of any trial or court settlement, and the enforcement - or not - of court decisions and sentences

Bribery, the other dark thread of judicial corruption, can occur throughout the fabric of the judicial process.

As 32 country reports in the Global Corruption Report demonstrate, corruption by different actors has a distinct effect on the judicial system and contributes to its deterioration and the end of public trust.

Judges may accept bribes to:

• delay or accelerate cases
• accept or deny appeals
• influence other judges or simply to decide a case in a certain way

Court officials may seek bribes for services that should be free.

Lawyers may charge additional “fees” to expedite or delay cases, or to direct clients to judges known to take bribes. Factors affecting the vulnerability to bribery of judges and other court personnel include:

• poor salaries
• insecure working conditions (including unfair promotion and transfer processes)
• a lack of continuous training

For judges who refuse to be compromised, political retaliation can be swift and harsh. Unfair or ineffective procedures to discipline and remove corrupt judges can end up being used instead for the removal of independent judges.

Failure to appoint judicial officials on merit can lead to the selection of a pliant, corruptible judiciary. “Problematic” judges can be reassigned or have sensitive cases transferred to more pliable judges.

Interference from politicians or civil servants can also buy “legal” cover for embezzlement, nepotism, cronyism and illegal political decisions. Such interference can be as blatant as physical threats and intimidation, and as subtle as the manipulation of judicial appointments, salaries and conditions of service.

Transparency International’s (TI) Global Corruption Barometer 2006, released in December 2006, explores how corruption affects the lives of citizens, by assessing both the form and extent of corruption, and which sectors of society they perceive as the most corrupt.

In 2006, the legal system/judiciary was identified as the most corrupt sectors and the third most common recipient of bribes. Worldwide, 8 percent of Barometer respondents who had contact with the legal system/judiciary paid a bribe.

See Figure 1 below:

(to see figure 1 in original size click here and go to page 315)

The experience of bribery was particularly high in Bolivia, Cameroon, Gabon, India, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan and Paraguay – where more than one in three court users admitted to paying a bribe.

The Barometer also broke this down by region to better assess trends. In Africa and Latin America, about one in 5 people paid a bribe, compared to 15 percent in Newly Independent States and the Asia Pacific, 9 percent in South East Europe, 2 percent in North America and 1 percent in the European Union and other Western European countries.

See Table 1 below:

(to see Table 1 in original size click here and go to page 11)

Respondents from 34 countries polled for the Barometer identified judges as the actors they most needed to bribe to obtain a fair judgement. Judges were followed by lawyers, police and prosecutors.

* The Global Corruption Barometer 2006 reflects the findings of a survey of 59,661 people in 62 low, middle and high-income countries, carried out on behalf of TI by Gallup International, as part of its Voice of the People Survey, between July and September 2006.

The judiciary is regarded as corrupt by a majority of people polled in African countries (with the exception of South Africa) by TI’s Global Corruption Barometer 2006. Moreover, of those who have had interaction with the judiciary, 21 percent paid a bribe. This has led to a loss of public trust in the judicial system, manifested by a common saying in Kenya: “Why hire a lawyer, when you can buy a judge?”

In some cases, corruption in the judiciary can be aggravated by the lack of resources, both training for judicial officials, low numbers of judges and law officers and lack of technical resources, such as computerisation.
The most persistent problems are:

• political influence over the selection of judges
• political interference in rulings
• low salaries for judicial officials

News stories highlighting judicial corruption:

• Judges in Uganda have gone on strike to demand more independence for the judiciary, and more voices have called for judicial independence in Kenya. In Nigeria, magistrates were recently sacked for corruption.
• A recent BBC news article stated “DR Congo do not get paid a salary, just an allowance which until recently was just US$100 a month” and highlighted that paying proper salaries would go a long way toward reducing the temptation to take a bribe.

The majority of citizens in nine out of ten Latin American countries polled by TI’s Barometer, perceived the judicial system to be corrupt – in Bolivia, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru this was as high as 80 percent of respondents.

The most persistent problems in this region are:

• political influence in judicial processes (especially in judicial appointments)
• poor resources
• dangerous working conditions
• corruption in the broader judicial system, such as the prison system or police

There is a common saying in Mexico among drug traffickers - “Plata y plomo” (meaning silver or lead), or, what will make a judge comply with a corrupt demand – money or a bullet. Violence or threats of violence may make judges more willing to comply with corruption.

Recent news articles:

• The integrity of the United States Justice Department is being seriously questioned after the firing of federal prosecutors apparently due to a lack of partisan loyalty.
• Another recent news article has suggested the removal of judges undermines judicial independence in Ecuador, and in Nicaragua a news story highlights the frequency with which one judge relieves cases related to the drug trade.

Perceptions of judicial corruption vary greatly across the region. According to TI’s Global Corruption Report 2006, Hong Kong and Singapore have low perceived levels of judicial corruption while India and Pakistan fare badly, with 77 percent and 55 percent of poll respondents respectively describing the judicial system as corrupt.

The main problem in the region is the lack of resources to solve the huge backlogs of court cases. It would take 350 years for India’s 670 judges to clear present backlogs. The official judicial system is also perceived as being weighted against the people; in Pakistan for instance, English is the judiciary’s official language, although only 2% of the population can understand it.

Judicial reform is being undertaken in many countries in Asia Pacific, however it is unfolding slowly and with limited success. This is due primarily to the politicised appointment of judges, as well as a general unwillingness to increase government resources in this area.

Recent news stories of judicial corruption in the region

• In an opinion piece, former judge of Gujarat High Court Justice B J Sethna discusses how corruption in the judiciary is escalating in India.
• In March 2007, lawmakers in the Philippines pushed for the Supreme Court of Justice to conduct lifestyle checks on judges, whilst in late 2006 four judges were charged with bribery for fixing cases in China.

There exists a wide divergence in the perception of judicial corruption in the region. The Scandinavian countries have overall the lowest perceived levels of judicial corruption in TI’s Global Corruption Report 2006, whereas in former communist countries, 45 per cent or more of the people polled described the legal-judicial system as corrupt.

The main problems in the region lie with:

• political interference in the selection and transfer of judges
• a shortage of resources, such as lack qualified judges and prosecutors
• no universal evaluation mechanism for judges which, in turn, diminishes the chance to detect corruption

In order to raise awareness of court procedures and offer advice to the victims of corruption, TI has established Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres (ALACs) that offer corruption hotlines and legal advice to victims of corruption. ALACs have been set up in in Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Romania.

Recent news stories highlighting judicial corruption in the region:

• In Bulgaria a Supreme Judicial Council has refused to rehabilitate a deputy minister dismissed on suspicions of corruption.
• An opinion piece in The Guardian discusses undue influence in the cash-for-honours inquiry in the UK.
• In Ukraine, a judge involved in the hearings investigating the legality of President Yushchenko’s decree to dismiss Parliament, is being investigated for corruption.

What can judges do?:

Carry out their functions with integrity, refrain from accepting bribes or other outside influence in exchange for favourable decisions, and refrain from influencing his/ her peers. Ensure cases are heard without delay, maintain accountability for decisions, act with due diligence, uphold judicial codes of conduct. Judges should also declare a conflict of interest as soon as it is apparent.

What can the judiciary do?:

Uphold the overall independence and integrity of the courts, develop and uphold a code of conduct based on the current best practice in the Bangalore Principles, actively promote judiciary’s adherence to ethical principles, produce guidelines for judges on ways to reduce delay, develop objective guidelines for case assignment, publish judicial decisions, develop judicial knowledge of anti-corruption laws and practices and make recommendations concerning appointments based on merit and good faith.

What can politicians do?:

Refrain from making public statements that would unduly influence the security or independence of judges, refrain from interfering in the appeals process, enforce judicial decisions (including against the government), provide adequate resources to allow the judiciary to better carry out its work, maintain the integrity and transparency of the judicial appointment process, refrain from removing judges for political reasons.

What can donors do?

Incorporate anti-corruption measures into judical reform programmes, respect judicial independence, adapt programmes to fit the local context, work with other actors and increase knowledge-sharing.

What can journalists and the media do?

Ensure they do not recklessly or maliciously undermine the authority and decisions of judges; receive training in legal reporting to keep reports fair and accurate and comment on complaints when they are made public.

What can civil society do?

Provide education about the court system and accountability mechanisms, offer expert advice on anti-corruption measures to judges, judiciary and government, contribute to an understanding of the issue by monitoring quality of judicial decisions and evaluating possibility of corruption, and generate debate. This should be done without overzealous or malicious criticism of judicial competence to keep from undermining judicial integrity.