A proposal towards creation of new courts to fight corruption in the society

It is a major reason for poverty around the world and its environments. Corruption happens in all corners of the society ranging from the Federal governments, civil society, and businesses and in the State governments among others. The vice affects the poorest the most, in poor and rich countries it is also on the rise. Though the current judicial legal systems are mandated to fight and ensure that the vice does not widen a gap in existence, the system has fallen short of powers to eradicate since the vice has undermined the political development, economic prosperity, and democracy. Statistics proof that corruption is mostly done by individuals in the higher authorities who have powers to change and amend laws of the land thus undermining the ability of the judicial legal systems to provide the way of fighting it (Gramckow 12).

The determination of the public for the courts to perform their duties according to the rule of law in fighting corruption is deficient. The integrity of the judicial system sustains its credibility implying that people’s confidence is fueled towards the confidence of the judiciary. Therefore, the legitimacy of the judicial system is accorded by the approval of the public. Confidence in the ruling on corrupt deeds in the public courts is only built on the perception of fairness of service and the general integrity upheld by the judicial officers. Currently, the perception and thought of the citizens towards the courts in its efforts to fight corruption is shallow since a feeling is created that the decisions are controlled by higher official positions in the case making the rule of law be seen as irrelevant.

Since the current judicial courts have failed to fight and control corruption, there should be a creation of different anti-corruption courts. The special anti-corruption courts can be defined as a court, a judge or a division of a tribunal or a court whose main role is to deal with the investigation, processing, prosecution, and decision of all matters pertaining corruption in the society. Specialized courts will bring about several advantages related to reducing widespread effects of corruption. Specialized courts are so helpful in processing cases which are even above the law of any country (Tate 478). Such complex cases require very special expertise that is also beyond the law like bankruptcy and mental health issues. This will bring a change in the ways cases are resolved and the general procedure that is taken to solve the cases.

Currently, in a court that is dealing with corruption, if the defendant raises a constitutional objection, the trial is forced to be suspended and that the case is returned to the High Court (Baum 6). The mandate of the high court will be to resolve the constitutional question that has been raised and return the case to the lower court. The case assumes the first step is making the whole judicial process very lengthy and unbearable. With the special courts, the whole process will be dealt with at once, and the cases can’t be returned to any court. The second strategy towards reducing corruption is increasing the penalties for corruption. Due to the current weak prosecutor and investigatory procedures in the courts, corruption battle has remained very weak.

The result of this is that the penalty for engaging in corruption which does not even happen does not exist among the judges and the magistrates. Therefore, improving incentives as well as improving the capacity of the prosecutors, judges, and magistrates is a great concern towards ensuring that those convicted are brought to trial and justice. Furthermore, the other possible strategy to fighting corruption is creating openness in the spending of the government. Speeding up of the cases is important in bringing justice to the light and enhancing trust to the public about the ability of the court. Also, the special anti-corruption courts will be mandated to go directly to the supreme court of the specific country thereby bypassing the intermediate appellate courts.