Certain judicial institutions, particularly the Supreme Court of Mongolia, have recently come under intense public scrutiny. The term of Chief Justice D.Ganzorig will expire early next month. Section 36.7 of the Law on Courts, which came into force on March 1, 2021, stipulates that “the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President for a term of six years, and only once, within 14 days after being nominated by the Supreme Court.” If this provision is applied, it would mean that the Chief Justice cannot be reappointed.
However, discussions have emerged suggesting that his name may be put forward again. This is because some argue that since D.Ganzorig was appointed Chief Justice before the law came into effect, the provision does not apply to him. There is also information circulating that the Chief Justice himself is interested in remaining in office. Moreover, a petition has reportedly been submitted to the Constitutional Court arguing that the above provision of the Law on Courts violates the Constitution, and the Court has scheduled the matter to be discussed at its plenary session on May 27. The fate of the Chief Justice issue will therefore depend on how the Constitutional Court rules. There is even speculation that the Chief Justice himself may have arranged for someone else to file the petition with the Constitutional Court.
At the same time, rumors have spread that T.Usukhbayar, who is expected to be newly appointed as a justice of the Supreme Court, could be made Chief Justice. Such claims appear to be exaggerated attempts to deflect attention and redirect it toward the President’s home province and circle. It is highly unlikely that someone who has not even been formally appointed yet would be nominated by the plenary meeting of Supreme Court justices and then appointed Chief Justice. There are many experienced figures within the Supreme Court who have served for years and who have also worked as chief judges at the first-instance and appellate court levels across the Criminal, Civil, and Administrative Chambers. Therefore, selecting one of these experienced judges and nominating them for Chief Justice would both comply with the law and help restore the reputation of the Supreme Court.
Reappointing the current Chief Justice, on the other hand, would not only contradict the above legal provision but would also reinforce allegations that a faction known as the “Onion Fraction” exists within the judiciary. Furthermore, reports have circulated alleging that he assaulted his driver, and that a former assistant who later became a judge was found guilty by lower courts, only for the Supreme Court to dismiss the case altogether. Many people connect such controversies to the current Chief Justice.
The judiciary’s reputation is already weak. In recent years, there have been multiple instances in which groups of judges were summoned before the Judicial Disciplinary Committee (JDC), while even the Prime Minister publicly attacked the judiciary with harsh statements. Yet during these moments, the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice remained silent. This is why many people on social media criticized the current Chief Justice, writing comments such as: “He never uttered a single word in defense of the judiciary. We need a courageous Chief Justice instead, someone who can uphold the dignity of the courts, stand behind judicial decisions, and face the public openly rather than hiding in the shadows.”
JGC AND JDC GROWING TOO CLOSE
Since the establishment of the JDC, the Supreme Court has not been particularly welcoming toward it. It cannot be ruled out that lawmakers themselves are partly responsible for the strained relationship between the constitutional institutions exercising judicial power. Some lawyers and legal scholars continue to debate whether it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to review decisions made by the committee.
There are also allegations that members of the committee use the possibility of opening disciplinary cases against judges as leverage. Such rumors have harmed the reputation of the judiciary and cast a shadow over it. Both sides should respond to these concerns, yet they remain silent as though they had taken a vow of silence. Many judges also believe that members of the Disciplinary Committee are misinterpreting and misapplying the law.
For example, Subsection 50.1.1 of the Law on Courts prohibits “abusing one’s official position and influence to create advantages for oneself or others”. Many judges who have faced disciplinary sanctions were accused under this provision, as can be seen from the committee’s resolutions. A considerable number of judges believe this provision is being wrongly interpreted and applied. In other words, many legal professionals argue that if a disciplinary case is initiated under this clause, it should instead be investigated by the Independent Authority Against Corruption (IAAC). Since the wording closely resembles Section 22.1 of the Criminal Code concerning abuse of official power, and because judges are also public officials, having such matters investigated by the IAAC may indeed be appropriate.
However, regardless of the circumstances, anyone accused of wrongdoing must be guaranteed the right to legal counsel. This is also enshrined in the Constitution. Yet the Judicial General Council (JGC) remains silent when it comes to protecting the rights of judges. One of the JGC’s functions is to identify the most qualified legal professionals and recommend them for judicial appointment, but another important responsibility is safeguarding the rights and interests of judges. Nevertheless, the work it has carried out to defend judges summoned before the Judicial Disciplinary Committee has been far from sufficient.
In fact, the law provides that information concerning unlawful actions committed by members of the JDC should be submitted to the JGC. Since the committee was established, complaints concerning two of its members were reportedly submitted to the JGC, but the cases were closed after no grounds were established. Members of both the JGC and the JDC are classified as high-ranking state officials. It is therefore strange that these officials, who are supposed to oversee and monitor one another, appear instead to be excessively close to each other. Surely lawmakers must have noticed this as well.
Under the pretext of implementing foreign-funded projects and programs, members of the JGC and the JDC often travel abroad together supposedly to study international experience. One cannot help but wonder whether this truly constitutes mutual oversight—or whether it instead reflects an increasingly cozy and mutually accommodating relationship.
WHO WILL UPHOLD JUSTICE IF INDICTED JUDGE ESCAPES ACCOUNTABILITY?
Judges play an important role in upholding justice. However, there are also cases in which judges commit misconduct, prioritize personal interests, and damage the reputation of their colleagues and the judiciary as a whole. This is precisely why the status of the Judicial Disciplinary Committee was enshrined in the Constitution, assigning it the responsibility of overseeing judicial ethics and discipline. In other words, lawmakers likely took this step because there were already concerns about the number of judges with weak discipline and ethical standards. Yet even today, there are still judges who violate ethics and act shamelessly.
In particular, such individuals are often said to include former lawyers who later passed judicial selection procedures and were appointed as judges. Most recently, the JDC reportedly began investigating a complaint involving a judge at an inter-soum court in Khovd Province. IAAC had investigated a case involving more than 40 employees from health, social insurance, and welfare institutions in Bayan-Ulgii Province who were accused of embezzling public funds and granting welfare benefits through personal connections to individuals not entitled to receive them.
One of the lawyers who had been investigated as a suspect in that case has since become a judge and is now reportedly serving at the very same court. Moreover, he is allegedly participating as a judge in a case in which he previously acted as defense counsel. Would this not constitute a clear conflict of interest? Specifically, a complaint has reportedly been filed with the JDC alleging that he violated Subsection 50.1.28 of the Law on Courts, which concerns “failing to recuse oneself despite knowingly being obligated to do so under the law”. The committee has already begun reviewing the matter.
There have also been cases involving bribery allegations connected to judges and lawyers investigated by the IAAC that were repeatedly returned by the courts before eventually being dismissed altogether. For example, former Chief Judge of the Bayanzurkh District Civil Court of First Instance and former Director of the Supreme Court Administration Office, S.Amardelger, along with attorney L.Enkhbat, were indicted by the Prosecutor’s Office under Sections 22.5-1 of the Criminal Code and transferred to court for determination of guilt.
The two legal professionals were accused of delivering a 10,000 USD bribe on September 8, 2022, to Judge B of the Civil Court of First Instance. Upon receiving the money, Judge B voluntarily reported the bribery attempt to the authorities, informed IAAC investigators of the incident, and surrendered the entire amount of foreign currency as evidence.
However, after the Supreme Court returned the case for additional investigation on the grounds that the whistleblowing judge himself should also be indicted in the bribery case, the matter seemingly disappeared from public attention. It later emerged that prosecutors had quietly dismissed the case. It remains unclear why the case was closed and why the 10,000 USD, which had been registered as physical evidence, was returned to the accused individuals.
If there truly was no crime and Judge B had spread false accusations or defamatory information about them, then he too should have been held accountable. Otherwise, the courts should have resolved the attempted bribery case fairly and transparently.
Beyond these issues, there are also attempts by lawyers to misuse the JDC. Some attorneys reportedly file complaints against judges with the committee and then obtain official references stating that “disciplinary proceedings are underway.” They subsequently use these documents as leverage, arguing, “You should not be handling this case because you are under disciplinary investigation.” The JGC should pay closer attention to such inappropriate practices.
ARE JUDGES WITH POOR DISCIPLINE HIDING BEHIND THE SUPREME COURT’S PROTECTION?
Decisions made by the JDC are reviewed by the Supreme Court, which issues the final ruling. Last April, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal sanctions imposed on two judges in Darkhan-Uul Province. Since then, disciplinary hearings have reportedly been scheduled every Friday this month. A complaint involving a judge from Selenge Province, initially scheduled to be heard on May 8, was postponed until this coming Friday. Meanwhile, disciplinary cases scheduled for May 1 and 15 were reportedly returned to the JDC for reconsideration.
Because judges from lower and appellate courts are involved, the Supreme Court has not only avoided discussing their actions publicly but has even concealed their initials. Yet this secrecy appears questionable when the JDC itself openly publishes the names and addresses of the judges and complainants involved in its hearing notices.
Every Thursday, the committee publishes summaries of its hearings on its website, and journalists often relay to readers the most noteworthy cases, particularly those resulting in the harshest sanction, which is dismissal. Nevertheless, members of the Judges’ Association, a non-governmental organization headed by Justice of the Supreme Court of Mongolia D.Batbaatar, reportedly sent intimidating official letters to media organizations simply for reporting publicly available information.
There is no legal provision stating that decisions of the JDC must remain confidential. A person serving as a Supreme Court judge sending such letters to intimidate journalists clearly contradicts the judiciary’s stated commitment to transparency and openness. If the Judges’ Association truly exists to defend judges, then it should also have issued similar official statements during the so-called “elevator judges” scandal. It is worth reminding the head of the Judges’ Association, whose role is to uphold justice, that double standards should have no place in the judiciary.
There have also been numerous complaints filed by judges against fellow judges with the JDC. Cases involving judges from Darkhan-Uul and Bayankhongor provinces, among others, have been reviewed by the committee, with some already adjudicated. This suggests that even judges themselves are exposing the existence of colleagues within the judiciary who suffer from weak discipline and ethical shortcomings.
