The highlights of a press conference that took place this week with an official in the Higher Institute for Justice at Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University as reported astutely in this paper has stirred the required emotional turbulence in me to write this column.
At the press conference, Dr. Zaid ibn Abdul Kareem Al-Zaid, dean of the Higher Institute for Justice flatly stated that “The media do not have the right to interfere in judges’ rulings or in the process of a trial.” While I agree that the media should not be prejudicial on an ongoing case, I reject the idea that we should accept a judge’s ruling, good or bad, without merit.
Dr. Al-Zaid continues,”Justice is the only thing that the judge should have to deal with,” declaring “media intrusion could have a negative impact on the verdict.” Granted that such intrusions could impact a case, why should they be negative? Does that mean that any case under review will be damned by the judges if the media expresses an interest in the judicial process or the outcome?
“Because a judge’s ruling is accepted by the governorate, the police and other authorities and is not questioned, that means his responsibility is a very great one and he should review his ruling more than once,” Al-Zaid said, adding that judges are human and make mistakes like anybody else.
Now here is where we can expect a problem. A judge makes a ruling. He cannot be questioned on it, as Dr. Zaid states. Yet as he is human, it could be possible that he has made a mistake like anybody else and erred in his judgment. So who suffers consequentially?
The judge for the media backlash that is sure to arise, or the person or persons on whom the errant judgment has been passed on? The case of enforced divorces on happily married couples surely is not causing the judges who delivered such verdicts sleepless nights filled with anguish as much as the forcibly separated couples. It is not the judge, I assure you, who suffers.
Dr. Zaid defends the actions of judges by noting that their mistakes were a consequence of personal differences due to individual interpretations of each case, and not abuse of power. By admitting that the qualifications of judges in the Kingdom in the matter of the law were not uniform, he says: “Some of them have advanced degrees and others have experience gained from their practice. They have learned their job due to extensive experience and for that reason, they have been given absolute authority.”
Why is it that we have to seek judgment from those whose whims, regional affiliations or personal interpretations may override common sense and a codified system of justice that we are sorely lacking? Why are judges so sensitive about media intrusion if their verdicts would have truly been in accordance with the laws of the Shariah? The media would have no reason to question recent bizarre rulings. And “absolute authority” not honored properly can be indeed a very dangerous thing.
And to expect the media to be quiet and not challenge a ruling smacks of a troublesome future for the rights of those seeking justice. While I agree that the media has a responsibility toward truthful and unbiased reporting, it should not be barred from disclosing outcomes of cases that carry no legal basis. If we do not have uniformity when dispensing justice, then we have no justice, plain and simple. And justice meted out must be in accordance with the rulings of the Shariah and nothing else.
Those judges who allow their own prejudices and personal interpretations that go smack against the Shariah to govern a case and issue questionable verdicts must be re-educated or shown the door.
