When the ‘guardian’ of justice is caught asleep

By Mero Baze

The magistrates’ pay crisis is putting to the test the entire accountability mechanism built by the justice reform. It is testing what judges we have chosen, what prosecutors we have chosen, but above all what governing institutions for justice we have produced out of a reform that now itself needs a lawyer.

So far the executive — the government — has openly confronted the judiciary, refusing to let judges set their own salaries and then facing their lawsuits for non-enforcement of their own rulings, issued in their own favor, against those who stand in the way of them setting their own pay.

The battle clearly reveals where each side stands, whether impartial or official.

Only one institution — the most important one for overseeing the power of the judiciary, the High Inspector of Justice, which is supposed to keep justice on track when it derails — has remained silent.

Law no. 115/2016 clearly designates the HIJ as the authority responsible for verifying complaints, investigating disciplinary violations and initiating disciplinary proceedings against judges and prosecutors. Moreover, Article 194 of that law gives the High Inspector the right to open an investigation on his own motion, on the basis of public information.

Artur Metani does not need to wait for someone to deliver an envelope bearing the name Nesti Angoni to his office before springing into action, as is the tradition of the new justice system. The conflict is public, and the financial consequences are public.

If the government’s claims are true and the magistrates have used judicial power to produce a financial benefit for themselves, then we have a case that falls squarely within the HIJ’s territory.

Article 101 of the law on the status of magistrates treats as a disciplinary violation the failure to refer to the law or the facts, whether intentional or due to gross negligence, as well as actions that damage public trust in the judicial system. Article 102 covers deliberately unreasoned decisions, when they result from personal interest or malice. Article 103, meanwhile, defines as a violation the use of a magistrate’s status to create benefits for oneself or others.

But it is precisely to separate a lawful decision from abuse that the HIJ was created. It must verify whether the decisions were taken in a conflict of interest, are deliberately unreasoned, or constitute the use of status for personal gain. The HIJ must then open an investigation and, if it proves the violation, ask the High Judicial Council for the corresponding disciplinary measure.

This is why Metani’s silence is not neutral. It protects the status quo produced by the magistrates, taking a side without judging the situation.

This is also where Parliament’s responsibility begins.

Parliament has the right and the duty to demand an explanation: whether the HIJ has opened a verification on its own motion, whether it considers the claims against the magistrates unfounded, and why it is deliberately avoiding confronting its own institution with this conflict.

This institution exists precisely for cases like this. If it will not speak up even for this one, its existence is pointless.

This matter cannot end with magistrates filing criminal complaints against the government and the government complaining publicly about magistrates, while the system’s disciplinary guard sits in silence.

Either the magistrates have applied the law and the decisions must be enforced, or they have used power for their own interests and must be investigated.

If Artur Metani refuses to give this answer through the exercise of his duty, then Parliament must initiate the procedure to review his accountability.

There can be no third way, where everyone accuses everyone else while the institution meant to safeguard the accountability of justice keeps sleeping through this case, pulling the blanket over its head so nobody can see it is alive.