IJA

INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

LUSHOTO
(Established by Cap. 405 of the Laws of Tanzania, RE 2002)

JUDICIAL ETHICS IN TANZANIA

By Gerald A.M. Ndika

Resident Magistrate, Senior Lecturer in Law
Acting Director of Studies, Institute of Judicial Administration Lushoto
TANZANIA

Paper presented at the Institute of Judicial Administration (IJA) Lushoto, Tanzania

for the Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court Magistrates held from
17th to 28th July 2006 and 31st July to 11th August 2006
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

JUDICIAL ETHICS IN TANZANIA

By: Gerald A.M. Ndika1

1.0 Introduction

We understand that the conduct and behaviour of judges and magistrates in any country,
charged with the difficult but noble obligation of administration of justice through
adjudication of judicial proceedings, can make or break that country’s Judiciary. In order
to guard against unethical conduct of this cadre of public officials and to instil public
confidence in the courts of law, most, if not all, judiciaries in the world have adopted
ethical norms to guide the conduct of these officials. In other words, these officials are
required to conduct themselves by those norms for the sake of contributing towards the
public’s acceptability and respectability of the courts.

This paper is addresses the professional, or rather judicial, ethics by which judges and
magistrates are expected to conduct themselves in and out of the courthouse. The paper
looks not just at the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of Tanzania but also at other
sources of ethics applicable to judicial officers in recognition of their position as public
officials. Thus, the paper examines the provisions of the Judicial Code of Conduct, the
Leadership Code, the Code of Ethics and Conduct for the Public Service, the Client’s
Service Charter of the Judiciary, and the Standing Orders for the Public Service in
Tanzania. Nevertheless, one caveat is in order: this paper does not attempt to provide a
comprehensive treatment of the ethics of the Judiciary. This paper only attempts to
provoke discussion by the programme participants that may be covered within the
confines of the programme’s tight schedule.

2.0 Conceptualising Ethics and Etiquette

I recognize that all participants in this programme must have formed an idea as to the
concept of ethics. The word “ethics” simply means rules of conduct or behaviour
pertaining to a particular class of human action. In other words, ethical rules are moral
principles that control, influence or guide a person’s or a body’s conduct or behaviour,
usually in order to gain or win respect for himself or herself and/or the body or
association to which he or she belongs. Ethics or moral philosophy distinguishes right
from wrong and good from bad and thus attempts to answer questions about what
conduct or behaviour is acceptable or not acceptable.

For example, when we talk of judicial ethics we refer to a body of moral principles that
control, influence or guide the conduct or behaviour of judicial officers. There are also
ethics for accountants, for medical practitioners, for teachers or lecturers, and even for
personal secretaries. Ethical rules may exist in a written or unwritten form but when
reduced into writing, they may be variously entitled as, for example, “Code of Conduct”,
1
, LL.B (Hons), UDSM; LL.M., Cambridge University, UK; LL.M., & LL.D., Kyushu University,
Fukuoka, Japan; Resident Magistrate, Senior Lecturer in Law and Acting Director of Studies,
Institute of Judicial Administration Lushoto.

1
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

or “Rules of Conduct.” It is important to note that ethics provides standards of behaviour

that are over and above which is legal in a given situation.2 Furthermore, ethics are based
upon moral principles formed through family, culture and society. Acting morally
towards others requires putting yourself in their place.3 As a judicial officer, for example,
you must ask yourself, how do like to be treated if you were a litigant?

While professional ethics focus on the protection of a professional’s client or any other
person expecting to be served by that professional competently and appropriately,
etiquette refers to the standards of behaviour considered good manners within a particular
profession.4 Simply put, etiquette means conventions of correct or polite social
behaviour, mostly unwritten rules, regarding the behaviour of members of a particular
profession as they function as individuals.

However, in order to appreciate the meaning of ethics and etiquette fully, it is important
to distinguish them from rules of law. As magistrates, we obviously understand that law
is defined as a body of rules of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognised or
enforced by the state. Laws are enacted by the state to keep society running smoothly and
to control the conduct or behaviour that may threaten public safety. Therefore, such rules
are the minimum standards necessary to keep society functioning and are enforced
through imposition of penalties for disobedience, which are decided by courts of law.
Unlike rules of law, ethics and etiquette are not enforced by courts of law mainly because
they are standards of conduct or behaviour over and above what is required under the
law. Table 1 below summarises the difference between the aspects of law, ethics and
etiquette.

Table 1: Comparison among Aspects of Law, Ethics and Etiquette 5

Law Ethics Moral Values Etiquette
Definition Set of governing rules Principles, standards, Beliefs formed Courtesy and
guide to conduct though the manners
influence of family,
culture and society
Main To protect the public To elevate standard of To serve as guide To get along
Purpose competence for personal ethical with others
conduct
Standards Minimal standards – Builds values and ideals Serves as basis for Leads to
promotes smooth forming a personal pleasant
functioning of society code of ethics interaction
Penalties Civil or criminal Suspension or eviction Difficulty in Ostracism from
for liability. Upon from membership of getting along with chosen groups
Violation conviction: fine, professional others
imprisonment, organisation or society,
revocation of licence or as decided by peers
other penalty as
determined by courts of
law

2
Judson, Karen and Sharon Hicks, Law and Ethics, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, New York, 1999, at 5.
3
Id.
4
Id. at 7
5
Modified from Id. at 8

2
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

3.0 The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

3.1 Background
Before we examine the standards or rules of ethical conduct for judicial officers of
Tanzania it is important that we look at the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
adopted in November 2002. These provide a model for a judicial code of conduct
worldwide. It is hoped that by looking at these principles, albeit briefly, this programme’s
participants will catch up with the evolution and enforcement of global standards of
ethical conduct for judicial officers. This will provide ground for the participants to
appreciate the need for them to observe ethical norms as a universal requirement.

However, one caveat is in order: the Bangalore Principles presuppose that judicial
officers are accountable for their judicial conduct to appropriate national institutions
enforcing judicial standards. Thus, the Principles seek to supplement, rather than derogate
from, existing rules of law and conduct.

The Bangalore Principles were adopted following an international effort, under the
Judicial Integrity Programme sponsored by the United Nations and coordinated by the
Judiciary Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity, to develop a code of universally
accepted ethical standards for judicial officers. The Principles were preceded by
extensive consultation with and participation of top-ranking judges and jurists from
common law and civil law countries between April 2000 and November 2002.

3.2 The Content of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct

The document contains broad principles appropriate to a universal code of judicial
conduct, drawing on the best practice and precedents in many jurisdictions of the world.
It is expected that it will be used as a guide in fashioning new national codes as well as
being applied as a reference for testing and revising national codes. Furthermore, as Dr.
Nihal Jayawickrama, who coordinated the effort to draw it, says it is more comprehensive
in its elaboration than any of the national codes now in existence. 6

The Bangalore Principles contain a preambular statement which partly states that:

"WHEREAS the importance of a competent, independent and impartial judiciary to the protection
of human rights is given emphasis by the fact that the implementation of all the other rights
ultimately depends upon the proper administration of justice.

"WHEREAS public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral integrity of the judiciary is
of the utmost importance in a modern democratic society.

"WHEREAS it is essential that judges, individually and collectively, respect and honour judicial
office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system."

6
For a further discussion on, inter alia, the Bangalore Principles, see Dr. Nihal Jayawickrama,
Drafting a Code of Judicial Conduct, in Cyrus Das and K. Chandra (Eds), Judges and Judicial
Accountability, New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2003, at 158

3
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

As shown above, the foregoing statement underlines the need for a competent,
independent and impartial judiciary in any country. It also affirms the need to protect and
promote public confidence in a country's judicial system and that judicial officers must
conduct themselves in ways and manner that enhance and maintain that confidence.
Then, the document goes on to stipulate six core values (principles), namely,
independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, and competence and diligence.

It is not surprising that judicial independence comes out on top of the core values.
Without judicial independence, a judicial officer cannot exercise the judicial function
effectively or in harmony with the fundamental values of a country. The judicial
independence is stated thus:

"Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair
trial. A [judicial officer] shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its
individual and institutional aspects."

One example of the application of this core value is contained in Para. 1.1 as hereunder:

"A [judicial officer] shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of the [judicial
officer's] assessment of the facts and in accordance with the conscientious understanding of the
law, free of any extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats, or interference, direct or
indirect, from any quarter or for any reason."

Judicial independence, of course, is compromised whenever a judicial officer accepts any

kind of bribe. Threats from the executive and interferences from superiors or senior
government officials can also compromise judicial independence.

Another example of the application of the principle of judicial independence is contained

in Para 1.2 thus:

"A [judicial officer] shall be independent in relation to society in general and in relation to the
particular parties to a dispute which the [judicial officer] has to adjudicate."

A judicial officer should not preside over a matter if he knows that he or she is related to
or has connections with one of the parties. The only course for a judicial officer related to
or connected with one of the parties to a dispute before him or her is to recuse himself or
herself.

Judicial impartiality is stated as "essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office."
The Bangalore Document further states that, "[Impartiality] applies not only to the
decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made." One application of
this principle is the requirement that a judicial officer should perform his or her judicial
duties without favour, bias or prejudice. Another application is the requirement that a
judicial officer must ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of the court, maintains
and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and the litigants in the
impartiality of the judicial officer and the judiciary.

The third core value, namely the principle of integrity, stipulates that integrity is essential

4
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

to the proper discharge of the judicial office. Unlike the preceding principles which have
several applications, this principle is applied in two heads only. First, a judicial officer is
enjoined to ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach in the view of a reasonable
observer. Second, the behaviour and conduct of a judicial officer must reaffirm the
people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary and that justice must not merely be done but
must also be seen to be done.

The propriety principle states thus:

"Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all activities of a
[judicial officer]."

This principle has detailed applications. In one application, it requires every judicial
officer to avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety in all of the judicial officer's
activities. In another application, the principle requires a judicial officer to accept,
willingly and freely, personal restrictions which might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen. A judicial officer is further required to conduct himself or herself in a
way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

The principle of equality recognises that ensuring equality of treatment to all before the
courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office. The last principle --
competence and diligence -- recognises that competence and diligence are also important
prerequisites to the performance of judicial office. This principle, for example, clearly
states that judicial duties of a judicial officer take precedence over all other activities and
that a judicial officer must devote his or her professional activity to judicial duties. He or
she is further required to take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance his or her skills
and personal qualities necessary for the performance of judicial duties.

4.0 The Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of Tanzania

4.1 Background
The first and primary source of standards of conduct for all levels of magistrates and
judges in Tanzania is the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of Tanzania. We have
already noted that in order for any Judiciary to be respected as a pure foundation of
justice, judicial personnel must submit to some ethical regulations that will ensure a high
moral order. The Tanzania Judiciary recognized this imperative and therefore developed
a Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers. Initially, the Judiciary relied upon an unwritten
code up until 1984. Even so, judicial officers appreciated the dos and don’ts, what
company to keep and what company not to keep, and so forth. In general, judicial officers
appreciated that, preservation and promotion of the integrity and respect of the
independence of the Judiciary, required decency, sobriety and uprightness in their
performance of their activities including judicial functions.

Following the Tanzania Judiciary’s recognition of the need to reduce the ethical rules of
conduct into writing, the Judges and Magistrates’ Conference held in Arusha from 15th to
16th March 1984 adopted a written Code of Conduct entitled “Code of Conduct for

5
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

Judicial Officers of Tanzania”, hereinafter to be referred to as “the Code”. 7 The

promulgation of the Code was an important step in enhancing judicial independence,
accountability and impartiality in Tanzania. This is mainly because the written judicial
code introduced a degree of clarity, for the judicial personnel and the wider public, as to
what may be expected of judges and magistrates in terms of their conduct or behaviour.
The Code now represents a standard against which judicial misconduct can be measured
and sanctioned.

As we move on to examine the content of the Code, it is important to note that the
adoption of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct in 2002, which, as pointed out
above, aim at establishing universal standards for ethical conduct of judges, requires
Tanzania to test or revise its Code in the light of those principles.

4.2 A Brief Look at the Code

The Code contains a preamble, explanations and four rules of ethical conduct. The
preambular statement reaffirms the indispensability of an independent, strong, and
respected and respectable judiciary for the impartial administration of justice in a
democratic state. Then, it goes further to state three other objectives of the Code, first,
that there is a need for a Judicial Officer to actively participate in establishing,
maintaining and enforcing, and himself observing, high standards of conduct so that the
integrity and respect for the independence of the Judiciary is preserved. Next, it
recognises that the judicial duties of a Judicial Officer, which include all the duties of his
or her office prescribed by the law, take precedence over all his or her other activities.
Finally, it restates the desirability that standards of conduct, which a Judicial Officer
should observe, be prescribed and published for the information of the Judicial Officer
himself and the public in general so that the objectives set out in the Preamble are
achieved.

In the Explanations part, the Code defines “Judicial Officer” to mean and include any
judge or magistrate of any description employed or appointed in the Judiciary in
Tanzania. It further provides that the Code applies to Tanzania Mainland and that a
violation of any of the rules in the Code constitutes judicial misconduct or misbehaviour
and may attract disciplinary action.

Let us look at the first Rule of the Code. It reads as follows:

“A Judicial Officer should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his [her]
activities.”

What does the Rule mean? Arguably, it means that a judicial officer should respect and
comply with the laws of the land, and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that
promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary. Therefore,
he should not allow his family, social or other relationships to influence his judicial
conduct and judgement. He must not use his prestige to advance private interests of

7
See e.g., The Hon. Mr. Justice (Rtd) B.D. Chipeta, Judicial Ethics, Guest Lecture delivered at
th
the Institute of Judicial Administration, Lushoto on November 24 2004 (mimeo).

6
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

others. Generally, he must not give or permit others to convey the impression that they
are in a special position to influence him. Possibly, when he gets to know of people, such
as his relatives, neighbours or subordinates, attempting to show that they could influence
him, he or she must act to discourage or put off such attempts. Because these attempts
usually advance private interests, they are antithetical to the administration of justice.

The Second Rule is longer than the first. Divided into four parts (or rather, sub-rules), the
rule stipulates ethical conduct in respect of adjudicative duties (which form the bedrock
of the duties of judicial personnel in this country), administrative duties of judicial
officers, recusal or disqualification by a judicial officer and waiver of recusal or
disqualification.

On adjudicative duties, the rule requires a judicial officer to be faithful to the law and
maintain professional competence to do his or her job properly. He or she is further
ordained to maintain order and decorum in judicial proceedings, to be patient, dignified
and courteous to all who appear before him or her and give them full right to be heard
according to the law. Furthermore, he or she is required to accord every person legally
interested in a proceeding, or his or her representative full right to be heard according to
the law. He or she is further required to dispose of his or her court business promptly by
efficiently managing time, being punctual and expeditious in attending court and should
elicit co-operation of all who appear before him to achieve this objective.

Judicial officers are additionally required under this rule to abstain from commenting
about a pending or imminent proceeding in any court in the country and should require
similar abstention on the part of court personnel who are under their direction and
control. The rule does not prevent a judicial officer from making statements in the course
of his or her official duties or from explaining for public or private information the
procedure of the court if such statements are not prejudicial to the integrity of the
judiciary and the administration of justice.

Finally, the sub-rule on adjudicative duties call for barring of broadcasting, televising,
recording of photographing in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto
during sessions of court or recesses between sessions in order to prevent the distortion or
dramatization of the proceedings by such recording or reproduction. This proscription
recognises that temperate conduct of judicial proceedings is essential for the fair
administration of justice.

However, an allowance is made for broadcasting, televising, etc. if such activities are for
the purpose of presentation of evidence, or for the perpetuation of the record or for the
purposes of judicial administration, or for investigative or other ceremonial proceedings.
The only condition for this exception is that the means so used must not distract
participants or impair the dignity of the proceedings, nor would any reproduction be
exhibited until after the case has been finalized in all stages.

As regards administrative duties, the Second Rule of the Code requires a judicial officer
to diligently discharge his or her administrative duties, maintain professional competence

7
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

in judicial administration and facilitate the performance of the administrative duties of

other judicial officers and court officials. He/she should require his/her staff and other
court officials subject to his/her direction and control to observe the standards of fidelity
and diligence that apply to him/her. Furthermore, he or she should initiate and take
appropriate disciplinary measures against another judicial officer or lawyer who is guilty
of professional or unethical conduct of which the judicial officer may come to learn.
Besides, the rule requires that a judicial officer should avoid nepotism or favouritism in
the exercise of administrative duties. Avoidance of nepotism or favouritism is especially
important in the context of Tanzania where complaints of cronyism and favouritism are
generally common in the civil service.

Sub-rule C of Rule 2 requires a judicial officer to recuse or disqualify himself or herself

in a proceeding in which his or her impartiality must reasonably be questioned. An
illustration of this is where he or she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party
or personal knowledge of the facts that are in dispute. Another example is where he or
she served as a lawyer in the matter in dispute. He or she should recuse himself or herself
where he or she knows that he or she as an individual or as a fiduciary or his or her
spouse or minor child residing in his or her household has a financial or any other interest
that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding, or he/her or his/her
spouse, or a person related to either of them is a party to the proceedings, or an officer,
director or trustee of a party, or is acting as a lawyer in the proceedings, or is known by
the judicial officer to have an interest which could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceedings. Furthermore, the same course of recusal should happen
where, to the knowledge of the judicial officer, the person is likely to be a material
witness in the proceedings.

On the same point of disqualification, Rule 2C (2) provides that a judicial officer should
inform himself or herself about his (or her) personal or fiduciary financial interest, and
make reasonable effort to inform himself (or herself) about the personal financial interest
of his (or her) spouse and minor children in his (or her) household.

The Code defines the term “fiduciary” to include such relationship as executor,
administrator, trustee and guardian, and “financial interest” as meaning ownership of a
legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as a director, adviser or other
active participant in the affairs of a party. The degree of relationship is calculated
according to the Law of Marriage Act, 1971 as may be amended from time to time.

The final part of Rule 2 covers Waiver of Disqualification. It provides that a judicial
officer who is otherwise disqualified under the provisions of Rule 2C (1) (c) or Rule 2C
(1) (d) may, rather than withdrawing from the proceedings, disclose on the record the
basis of his disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties, their
representatives and/or lawyers, independently of the judicial officer’s participation, all
agree that the judicial officer’s relationship is immaterial or that his (or her) financial
interest is insubstantial, the judicial officer will no longer be disqualified and may
participate in the proceedings. However, the consent of those concerned must be
recorded and shall form part of the record of the proceedings.

8
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

Rule 3 of the Code stipulates, “[a] Judicial Officer may engage in activities to improve
the Law, the Legal system and the Administration of Justice.” While acknowledging that
a judicial officer is in unique position to improve the legal system and administration of
justice, this rule encourages judicial officers to speak, write, teach, lecture and participate
in other activities concerning the law and the administration of justice. What’s more, the
rule allows judicial officers to join organizations for improvement of the law, the legal
system and the administration of justice. However, judicial officers must be careful when
writing, lecturing, speaking or teaching non-legal subjects, because social and
recreational activities can detract from the dignity of the judicial office.8

The final rule in the Code is Rule 4, which provides as follows:

“A Judicial Officer should regulate his extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with
his judicial duties.”

This Rule means that a Judicial Officer may, apart from promoting and improving the
law and the administration of justice, engage in arts, sports and other social and
recreational activities provided that such activities do not adversely affect the dignity of
his office or interfere with the performance of his judicial duties. He may participate in
civic and charitable activities within the same dignified limits. More specifically, the rule
ordains that a judicial officer should not practise law. However, it is important to note
that this rule allows some freedom to judicial officers as part of the society in which they
live so that they are not isolated from it but at the same time seeks to keep them within
dignified limits.

5.0 The Leadership Code of Ethics Act, 1995

This piece of legislation is another source of ethical standards particularly for judicial and
other senior members of the Judiciary. This law was enacted upon recognition of the fact
that the leadership of any country occupies the position of trust, which denotes existence
of a moral principle. The purposes of any code of ethical behaviour have already been
stated above but it is important to emphasise that any such code will seek to achieve the
following: 9

 To prevent conflict of interest

 To prevent corruption
 To promote transparency and build up confidence in people in responsible
positions
 Declarations of assets and liabilities for the top leadership is mandatory
 Leaders should declare their assets and liabilities because they occupy sensitive
positions

8 nd
American Bar Association and The National Judicial College, The Judges’ Book, 2 Edition,
(1994), at 310
9
Hoseah, E.G., Essays on Combating Corruption in Tanzania and the Basic Legal Principles,
Ecoprint, Dar Es Salaam, 1999, at 21.

9
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

The Public Leadership Code of Ethics Act applies to public leaders including judges and
magistrates. The Act requires periodic declarations by public leaders of their assets and
liabilities. The Ethics Secretariat under the auspices of the President’s Office administers
this law. Headed by a sitting or retired judge, the Secretariat is charged with receiving
declarations of assets and liabilities, receiving complaints, making inquiries and reporting
its findings to the President or any other relevant authority. When it deems fit, the
Secretariat may refer certain matters to the Prevention of Corruption Bureau or other law
enforcement organs for appropriate action.

6.0 The Code of Ethics and Conduct for the Public Service

A few years ago, the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania issued for the first
time since independence in 1961 a Code of Ethics and Conduct for the Public Service. In
the Preamble to the Code, it is stated that the Code is intended to help public service
employees understand “what is required of them in terms of ethical conduct and
standards of performance acceptable in the Public Service.” In stipulating clearly the
standard of behaviour, the Code “aims to enhance ethical performance and to regain
public confidence” in the public service. The Preamble further states that:
“The Code will also enable Public Servants to participate fully in fulfilling the mission of the
Public Service, which is to deliver quality service to the people of Tanzania efficiently, effectively
and with the highest standards of courtesy and integrity.”

“In so doing, public employees will be effecting the vision of transforming the Public Service into
an institution which will be pivotal in achieving sustainable economic growth and prosperity in
Tanzania and eradicate poverty in the 21st Century.”

It must be stated at the outset that this Code does not apply to judicial officers because its
Preamble excludes from its application all public service employees who are covered by
the Public Leadership Code of Ethics Act. Nonetheless, the Code applies to our non-
judicial colleagues in the Judiciary, who mostly happen to be our subordinates. It is
therefore imperative that we understand we appreciate the content of the Code.

The Code contains eight ethical rules defining behaviour and conduct required of public
service employees in order for the Public Service to be efficient and its servant respected.
These values contained in these rules are:

 Respecting all Human Rights and being courteous;

 Performing diligently and in a disciplined manner;
 Promoting team work;
 Pursuing excellence in service;
 Exercising responsibility and good stewardship;
 Promoting transparency and accountability;
 Discharging of duties with integrity; and
 Maintaining political neutrality.

10
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

For example, while the first rule (i.e., respecting all Human Rights and being courteous)
recognises democratic and religious rights of public servants, it proscribes advocacy of
religious beliefs in Public Service Offices. Other proscriptions are discrimination and
sexual harassment. Besides, it requires all public service employees to be courteous to
senior and fellow employees as well as to all clients and particularly the clients being
served. Under this rule, a public servant is also expected to respect other employees, their
rights, as well as their right to privacy especially when handling private and personal
information.
On discipline and diligence, the Code requires high degree of diligence and discipline in
performance of duties. Public servants are required to obey the law; to obey and effect
lawful directives; to be ready to work at any duty station; to punctually report for duty on
working days; to avoid the use of rude and abusive language, etc. This rule also requires
public service employees to maintain personal hygiene, dress in respectable attire in
accordance with the acceptable norms of the office as stipulated in staff circulars. More
importantly, this rule requires all public servants not to disclose secret and confidential or
official information which has been availed to him or her while discharging official
duties without due permission. This obligation to maintain secrecy and confidentiality of
official information continues even after one has left the Public Service.

The rest of the Code addresses transparency and accountability (e.g., a public servant will
adhere to and practice meritocratic principles while delivering his service; the obligation
to discharge duties with integrity (e.g., by abiding by the laws, regulations and
procedures, abstaining from corrupt practices, avoiding conflict of interest or pecuniary
embarrassment); and the need for public service employees to observe political neutrality.

7.0 The Client’s Service Charter of the Judiciary

One of the important sources of ethical rules governing the conduct of all personnel in the
Judiciary including judicial officers is the Client’s Service Charter of the Judiciary
created in 2002. In this Charter, the Judiciary stipulates standards in the delivery of
judicial services in the country and covenants to abide by those standards in various
aspects of the day-to-day administration of justice. The Charter’s Core Values are the
following:

 To have all the staff adhere to professional ethics within and outside the office;
 To strictly adhere to rules, regulations, directives and orders from senior judicial
officers while carrying out our daily duties;
 To treat all people fairly and respectfully of their privacy and dignity while
paying particular attention to those with special needs;
 To set up mechanism of punctuality in delivery of justice and responding to
clients demands an complaints;
 Set clear standards of services that users can expect, monitor and review
performance, publish the results and receive independent validation
 Be open, communicate clearly, and effectively and in a plain language on the
court procedures to help people coming to court be well informed about
procedures, services and their costs.

11
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

 Use resources effectively and to provide best value for taxpayers, donors and
users and continuously look for ways to improve services and facilities offered;
and
 Work with other Ministries, Departments and Agencies to ensure that judicial
services are effectively and timely co-ordinated and delivered to the public.

In consonance with the abovementioned Core Values, the Charter expounds eight basic
ethical rules as follows:

 Professionalism, which entails following relevant ethical norms and standards

 Compliance with relevant rules, regulations, directives and orders from superiors
in the Judiciary
 Respect and courtesy, meaning that Judiciary staff must courteous and responsive
to the public and the public must be treated with respect.
 Promptness and timeliness
 Transparency
 Cooperation among Judiciary staff
 Equality and fairness in delivery of judicial services – meaning that all those who
come to court must treated fairly irrespective of their gender, creed, religion,
tribal origin or political affiliation, etc.
 Integrity

The Charter then proceeds to state the standards for delivery of judicial services, one of
which emphasises courtesy and responsiveness on the part of the Judiciary staff to
clients’ needs. They are further required to be ready to give “extra service” to clients
when need arises. Apart from providing for the client’s rights, the Charter stipulates time-
frames within which certain prescribed judicial and administrative actions and processes
must be accomplished. This is certainly a great innovation and, perhaps, may be the most
significant part of the Charter. However, stipulating the time-frames in a Charter is one
thing and keeping them is another. The time-frames are therefore a challenge to all
Judiciary staff, and they must strive to keep them just as they the endeavour to honour
other covenants contained in the document.

8.0 The Standing Orders for the Public Service

Another source of ethical rules for all staff of the Judiciary including magistrates is the
Standing Orders for the Public Service. The Orders state that they are intended to provide
equitable and impartial answers to all ordinary problems of service administration. In
terms of the Standing Order A.2, read together with Standing Order A.1.12, the Standing
Orders apply to servants in civil, judicial or police or prison service. This, therefore,
brings into the purview of the Standing Orders employees in the Judiciary.

Section F of the Standing Orders provides Rules of Conduct, Discipline and Termination
of Appointment. The rules are especially relevant to the administration of justice and
preservation of independence and integrity of the Judiciary. For example, the Section
provides rules that impose restrictions on external interests. Standing Order F.1 generally

12
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

prohibits engagement by an officer in any occupation or undertaking outside his or her

official duties that would require his attendance at any time for Government business.

More significantly, Standing Order F.10 prohibits officers from giving or receiving
valuable presents other than ordinary gifts to or from friends and relatives whether in the
form of money, goods, free passage or other benefits. This prohibition is grounded on the
fact that giving or acceptance of such gifts can affect the officer’s reputation for
impartiality in the community he or she lives in and in turn will affect the public’s
confidence in the integrity of the service.

Other rules of conduct contained Section F include prohibitions against financial or

pecuniary embarrassment and absence from duty without permission; restrictions on
political activities and trade union membership; and the requirement to report for duty on
time. Of particular importance is Standing Order F.33, which defines what amounts to a
misconduct for a public officer. It enumerates seventeen types of misconduct.

9.0 Conclusion
This presentation sought to provide the participants in this course with something to chew
over on the key issues of judicial ethics. Since our judicial offices are a public trust, we
cannot avoid behaving and conducting ourselves in accordance with a set of ethical
norms. However, unlike other public office-bearers, all judicial officers are subject to
much stronger restrictions on their conduct in and out of court. All these restrictions aim
at securing and promoting public confidence in the independence and integrity of the
Judiciary. We must always remember that all our transgressions negatively impact our
quest “to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
Since we are the ones who can make or break the Judiciary, let us renew our commitment
to live faithfully by the Code.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS OF

TANZANIA
APPENDIX 2: THE CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT FOR THE PUBLIC
SERVICE IN TANZANIA

13
Dr. Gerald A.M. Ndika Judicial Administration Course for Primary Court
Magistrates

REFERENCES

Binchy, William, Comparative Practical Problems and Solutions in Applying a Judicial

Code in National Systems, paper presented at the seminar in commemoration of
the 25th anniversary of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania held at the Royal Palm
Hotel, Dar Es Salaam on 16th and 17th September 2004 (mimeo)
Chipeta, B.D., Judicial Ethics, Guest Lecture delivered at the Institute of Judicial
Administration, Lushoto on November 24th 2004 (mimeo)
Das, Cyrus & K. Chandra (eds), Judges and Judicial Accountability, Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2003
Judson, Karen and Sharon Hicks, Law and Ethics, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, New York,
1999
Odoki, B.J., An Introduction to Judicial Conduct and Practice, 3rd ed., Law Development
Centre, Kampala, 1990
Ruhangisa, J.E., Judicial Ethics and Etiquette, Paper presented at a Guest Lecture for
Second Year Diploma in Law Students, 2005/06, at the Institute of Judicial
Administration, Lushoto on 1st June 2006 (mimeo)
The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
The Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of Tanzania

14