Core values which are germane to the role of judicial office holders (JOHs) anywhere in the world are:

* Independence

* Impartiality

* Integrity

These same core principles form part of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, some of which were endorsed at the 59th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission at Geneva in April 2003.

JOHs within and outside the courtroom are expected to exhibit judicial independence, which is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial. Our judges are therefore expected to uphold and exemplify judicial independence both in their individual capacities and in institutional aspects.

Essential as judicial impartiality is, it could not only apply to decisions judges arrive at but also to the process and events leading to and by which decisions are made.

Propriety and the appearance of the same are pivotal to the discharge of all of the engagements a judge delves into. In the performance of their judicial office, they should endeavour to ensure that all who appear before them would be accorded a basic right of equality of treatment.

The judiciary, as an institution, must act in such a way that will engender public confidence and respect, and be seen as a separate, distinct and independent branch of government.

The court ought to be insulated from the politics of the other bodies, which are the executive, legislature and political parties and at the same time, try as much as possible not to be influenced by any social and economic power.

Judicial impartiality goes hand in hand with its independence and integrity. Public confidence in the courts depends largely upon the judges’ adherence to their oath of office to do right in the sense of all manner of people without favour or any ill will. If they seem to favour one party, be it the government or a citizen, the judiciary, by such indiscretion, saps public confidence.

Democratic structures weaken, and the rights and freedoms of citizens are at risk if the public loses confidence towards the impartiality or independence of the judiciary.

Judges should be concerned about the denigration of their office, and also the process of growth of their office by politicians, the media, and other members of society.

The judiciary must strive to ensure that their conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants, both in terms of their personal impartiality and that of the courts.

As far as it is reasonable, members of the bench should try to avoid extra-judicial activities that could result in reasonable apprehension of bias or would result in a conflict of interest.

They should try to restrain themselves or refrain from engagements which might diminish their authority as judges or create a perception of bias in the eyes of an ordinary citizen.

Generally, judges are entitled to exercise the rights and freedoms available to all citizens; however, appointment to the judicial office brings with it limitations on the private and public conduct of a judge.

This is not to say judges must refrain entirely from community affairs, as there is great public interest in some of their engagements. It is therefore necessary for them to strive and strike a good balance. Exercising proper discretion in personal relationships, social contacts and other such activities cannot be gainsaid.

The true measure of a society's peace is the quiet and unseen reliability of its rule of law.