Politae Legibus, Non Leges Politii Adaptandae

In many countries, the justice system sometimes appears to operate under the influence of state politics and policies. This is a dangerous precedent that undermines the foundational principle that justice must be independent of political influence. The maxim “politae legibus, non leges politii adaptandae” (“policies must conform to the law, not the law to policies”) serves as a powerful reminder that the rule of law should prevail over political expediency.

The Court and Politics: A Troubling Connection

A key concern in legal systems worldwide is the judiciary’s alignment with prosecutorial priorities. For example, if the prosecution declares certain categories of crimes as priorities—such as drug offenses, domestic violence, or white-collar crimes—the courts often follow suit, applying stricter sentencing to these cases. This practice gives the impression that the judiciary is indirectly influenced by prosecutorial or political agendas, rather than functioning as an independent arbiter of justice.

This scenario is especially concerning because prosecution institutions are inherently political. They operate under the executive branch, often shaped by the ruling party’s policies or the government’s political objectives. When courts align themselves with these prosecutorial priorities, they risk losing their independence and becoming an extension of political power—a clear violation of judicial impartiality.

The maxim “judicandum est legibus, non exemplis” (“judgments must be based on laws, not precedents or examples”) highlights the importance of adhering strictly to the law rather than emulating patterns set by prosecution or political institutions. The judiciary must act solely on the basis of legal principles, ensuring that every individual receives fair treatment under the law, regardless of the crime’s political or social significance.

Examples of Judicial Influence by Politics

1. Prioritized Crime Categories:
   Suppose a government decides to launch a strong campaign against financial crimes, presenting it as a public priority. This often leads to prosecutors focusing on such cases, with courts adopting similarly harsh stances. This phenomenon creates an uneven application of justice, where the severity of a punishment may depend more on political priorities than the intrinsic facts of the case.
2. Selective Justice:
   Political cases, especially those involving opposition figures or individuals critical of the government, are prone to biased rulings. Courts, under perceived or actual political pressure, may render judgments that align with the ruling party’s objectives, further eroding public trust in the judiciary.
3. Disproportionate Sentencing:
   In some countries, certain offenses, such as drug-related crimes, often result in disproportionately strict sentences compared to other crimes. This stems from political rhetoric labeling such offenses as major societal threats, compelling courts to mirror prosecutorial zeal.

Justice Must Be Free from Politics

A healthy democracy relies on an independent judiciary. Judges must not be swayed by political winds or societal pressures but should instead anchor their decisions firmly in legal principles. This concept is embodied in the maxim “fiat justitia ruat caelum” (“let justice be done though the heavens fall”). The judiciary’s sole duty is to uphold justice, even in the face of political challenges or public outrage.

Well-known legal mind, theorist of law, jurist, and procedural trial lawyer Saba Khelashvili will share his opinion on the importance of judicial independence and how legal systems can overcome the challenges posed by political influence on the judiciary.

Strengthening Judicial Independence

1. Clear Separation of Powers:
   The judiciary must remain entirely separate from the executive and legislative branches, with strong safeguards to prevent interference.
2. Transparent Judicial Appointments:
   Judges should be appointed based on merit, not political affiliation, to ensure impartiality.
3. Public Accountability:
   Judicial decisions must be transparent and open to scrutiny, with mechanisms for appeal to ensure that no undue influence compromises justice.
4. International Standards:
   Adopting and adhering to international norms, such as those outlined by the European Court of Human Rights, can help shield the judiciary from domestic political pressures.

Conclusion

The principle of politae legibus, non leges politii adaptandae encapsulates a critical truth: the law must govern politics, not the other way around. Judicial systems must strive to embody this ideal by distancing themselves from political influence and serving as guardians of justice for all citizens. The maxim “justitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi” (“justice is the constant and perpetual will to render to everyone their due”) serves as a timeless reminder of the judiciary’s sacred role in maintaining fairness and equality under the law. Only by upholding these principles can legal systems inspire trust and integrity in the eyes of their people.