Judicial power between the scales of justice and the depths of passion ✍️ Dr Abdul Karim Al Hashemi
Injustice is considered the worst disease of souls and the ugliest thing that afflicts a person. It cannot be found in the heart of a human being without it corrupting it. It only enters the arena of a society if it weakens it, divides its components and destroys the sense of confidence and assurance in the hearts of its members. It is the root of all social affliction, the source of all moral deviation and the source of all political, administrative or judicial corruption. There is no society in which injustice is widespread without it being eroded from within and torn apart. Its members.
The injustice of people towards each other is bitter and heavy, but the most horrible and grievous type of injustice is the injustice of the judge who has been appointed to administer justice. He oppresses in the name of the law and is arrogant with the authority of his position. Indeed, it is an injustice committed under the guise of justice and in the name of the law, which makes it one of the most heinous and deadly forms of injustice for citizens’ trust in the State and its institutions.
The righteous judge is the shadow of God on earth. He reassures and trusts his judgment and his justice. He weighs things on the scales of truth and not according to his whims, and he governs with his mind and not according to his emotions. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “There are three judges: two judges in hell and one judge in paradise. A judge who knew the truth and ruled according to it is in paradise. A judge who knew the truth and was ungrateful in his judgment is in hell. A judge who ruled for people out of ignorance is in hell.”
If the judge is unjust in his decision, or if he raises his hand according to his whims, then he has betrayed the trustworthiness of God, lost the sanctity of the position he held, and become a whip of injustice instead of a sword of truth. One of the worst forms of injustice is for a judge to be influenced in his decision by his intellectual, political, regional or ethnic affiliation, or to be a malleable tool in the hands of an evil group to carry out sinful conspiracies, or to base his decision on slander, suspicion, backbiting, grudges and personal goals, and not on evidence and proof. What’s worse is that the judge announces his intention to convict in private, before hearing the evidence.
A judge who arbitrarily questions defendants and witnesses and practices a certain degree of verbal and psychological terrorism against them, as if justice were an adversary and not a balance, goes from the status of an impartial judge to that of a humble opponent.
The judge who seeks to convict the accused, and not his innocence, is an unjust judge who has forgotten that the principle of being human is acquittal and that the accused is innocent until proven guilty by evidence, not by doubt, nor by deduction, nor by weighing based on suspicion. The crime is only proven if its elements are complete and if it is surrounded by certainties beyond doubt.
Evidence is the cornerstone of litigation and litigation. The judge who does not distinguish between valid evidence and rejected testimony, or the statement of an adverse associate or witness, or who renders his decision on the testimony of an adversary or associate, without corroborating or corroborating the evidence, is a judge to whom justice is not entrusted. On the contrary, he is an unjust and unjust judge, because a just decision can only be based on evidence that shines like the sun on the fourth day, and judges him. The just person is fond of such evidence and does not tend to infer evidence to convict, because he is obligated to acquit the accused, just as he is obligated to convict when the crime is proven, so inferring evidence does not establish justice and suspicion cannot be based on a decision. The true judge is rather the one who firmly believes that the principle of the human being is acquittal, and that there is only punishment for a crime, and crime only with a text and conclusive and unambiguous evidence.
The judge who is patient and exaggerates the punishment, as if there is a grudge or revenge between him and the condemned, and sometimes even lies in wait for them and announces his sentence, this judge does not understand the spirit of the law and does not realize that punishment is not a means of revenge, but rather a means of reform and balance. Rational humanitarian law takes into account the proportionality of the punishment in relation to the crime and weighs it on a precise scale, taking into account the seriousness of the act, its seriousness, the personality of the accused or convicted person and his circumstances. And its precedents. As for the one in whom the tendency towards healing outweighs the scale of wisdom, he is far from the spirit of righteousness, no matter how much he dresses in its trappings and trappings.
The permanent judiciary is no less important than the acting judiciary. The lawyer is a partner in revealing the truth and speaking out against his client. His position before the judicial bench constitutes neither begging nor subordination, but rather the fulfillment of an honorable professional duty. The wise and prudent judge is one who treats lawyers with dignity and respect, listens to them as he listens to the voice of justice itself, and grants them the appreciation and dignity demanded by principle. As for the judge who treats the permanent members of the judiciary with arrogance and contempt, interrupting them without justification, minimizing their presence in front of their clients and working to weaken their prestige in the arenas of justice, he does not only insult the lawyer, but he insults the judiciary itself, because justice is not based on the humiliation of one of its wings. A weak lawyer does not make a strong judiciary, and the court’s respect for the lawyer is not a blessing, but rather a requirement of the honor of the judiciary itself.
Judiciary is not a profession that can be practiced by anyone who wants, but rather a sacred message that can only be accomplished by those whose hearts are pure, whose souls are upright, whose knowledge is mixed with wisdom, whose justice is mixed with mercy and who conduct themselves according to heavenly values.
The judiciary represents the pillar and crown of the State. If it is reformed, people are reformed, and if it is corrupted, morals and souls are also corrupted.
I would like every judge to remember that he sits on a chair above which only the truth stands and that he is burdened with irreplaceable destinies, with lives that cannot be restored and reputations that cannot be restored. Let him know that the scales of justice can only be established on a pure heart, a tongue that speaks only the truth, and an insight that is not deceived by desires. He who does not realize these meanings is not worthy of the position of judge, nor of the integrity of justice, which can only be tolerated by pure hearts and sound minds.
Let no judge think that the authority in his hands is an authority on the necks of servants, but rather a confidence on his neck before God and history.
The judge may be impelled by the arrogance of his position, or by the illusion of infallibility, or by the tendency of the soul to injustice, but he must remember that the power of God is above all power and that his justice is never absent. He is the Mighty, the Avenger. And if he takes, then his taking is due to a strong and powerful taking. How quickly conditions change and days pass. How many judges thought they were above all responsibility, but then the days reveal their faults, and time gives them good taste. His actions are transmitted to others. The archives of history preserve it. The judges who were unjust and betrayed their trust perished and their memory disappeared, just as history has recorded in its pages in gold ink the biography of the righteous judges, so their lives have been immortalized among the people. On the contrary, they have become a beacon of truth and fairness. History does not immortalize the names of judges by the arbitrariness and arbitrariness of their decisions, but rather by their justice and integrity.
