Judicial Bias by the Judge For Recusal of a Judge in Ethiopia

 

 By: Zeray Weldesenbet

 

The overall objective of this short legal note is to provide highlights on the meaning of the provision of Article 33(1)(e) of Federal Courts Proclamation No. 1234/2021, raises important considerations regarding judicial bias, and emphasizes the importance of considering judicial bias and its implications for seeking the recusal of a judge.

 

"A judge of a federal court shall be removed from his bench where there are sufficient reasons, other than those specified under sub-article (1)(a) to (1)(d) of article 33, to conclude that injustice may be done.“, according to Article 33(1)(e) of the Federal Courts Proclamation No. 1234/2021.

 

And what are the possible circumstances or reasons that could fall within this specific legal provision? Can judicial bias fall
within this ambit of the legal provision at hand? If so, what factors indicate bias against one party of a case by the judge?

 

Proving judicial bias or prejudice can be challenging, as it requires demonstrating that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or lawyer that affects their impartiality. However, several factors can indicate bias against one party in a case by the judge.

 

Here are the steps you might follow to establish such bias:

 

1. Consistently Adverse Rulings:

   - Repeatedly making decisions that go against one party, especially when those decisions lack clear legal justification.

 

2. Disproportionate Denial of Motions:

   - Regularly denying motions from one party while granting similar motions from the other party.

 

3. Hostile Language or Tone:

   - Using language or a tone that is hostile, dismissive, or condescending towards one party or their attorney.

 

4. Unequal Treatment During Proceedings:

   - Interrupting or cutting off one party’s lawyer more frequently.

   - Allowing one party’s lawyer more time and freedom to present their case while restricting the other.

 

5. Ignoring or Discrediting Evidence:

   - Consistently disregarding or minimizing the importance of evidence presented by one party.

 

6. Frequent Criticism:

   - Frequently criticizing one party’s arguments or questioning their credibility more intensely than the other party.

 

7. Ex-Parte Communications:

   - Engaging in communications with the opposing party without the knowledge or presence of the affected party.

 

8. Personal Relationships:

   - Having a known personal, financial, or familial relationship with the opposing party or their counsel that could influence impartiality.

 

9. Body Language and Non-Verbal Cues:

   - Displaying negative body language, such as rolling eyes, sighing, or showing visible frustration towards one party.

 

10. Uneven Application of Courtroom Rules:

    - Enforcing courtroom rules strictly against one party while being more lenient with the other party.

 

11. Public Statements:

    - Making public statements or comments outside of court that indicate a bias against one of the parties involved in the case.

 

12. Lack of Fair Hearing:

    - Refusing to allow one party to fully present their case or to respond to the opposing party’s arguments adequately.

 

13. Overturning Evidence or Testimonies:

    - Regularly striking out or not considering testimonies and evidence submitted by one party without sufficient reason.

 

14. Dismissive Behavior:

    - Displaying dismissive or patronizing behavior towards one party or their legal team.

 

Documenting these factors meticulously is crucial for establishing a pattern of bias and for any potential motion to recuse the judge based on judicial bias.

 

Here's a breakdown by way of summary:

 

A. Circumstances falling within the provision of Article 33(1)(e) of Proclamation No. 1234/202: This provision allows for the removal of a judge from their bench if there are sufficient reasons to conclude that injustice may be done, beyond the reasons specified in sub-articles (1)(a) to (1)(d) of Article 33 of the Proclamation at hand.

 

B. Judicial bias falling within this ambit: judicial bias could fall within this provision, among others. If there are sufficient reasons to believe that a judge is biased, such bias could lead to the conclusion that injustice may be done, thus triggering the provision for removal.

 

C. Factors indicating bias against one party: Some factors indicating bias against one party by the judge could include:

 

   - Demonstrated prejudice or favoritism towards one party.

 

   - Prior relationship or affiliation with one party outside the scope of the legal proceedings.

 

   - Making comments or rulings that indicate a preconceived opinion or hostility towards one party.

 

   - Behaviors or actions that suggest unfair treatment or lack of impartiality.

 

Let me say finally that some judges believes that the only available legal avenue for challenging their decisions is through appeal or cassation rather than demanding recusal before judgement, while they are repeatedly making decisions that go against one party, especially when those decisions lack clear legal justification/ground.

 

This belief of some judges may stem from a variety of factors, including a lack of awareness of the recusal process, a perception that recusal is a drastic measure, or a preference for the appellate process as the appropriate forum for addressing perceived errors or biases in lower court decisions.

 

However, it's important to note that recusal or removal of a judge or judges is a legitimate legal remedy available to parties who believe a judge's impartiality is compromised, and it can be pursued before or during trial proceedings.

 

By: Zeray Weldesenbet

(A private advocate in both federal courts and courts in the Afar regional state at all levels)