Friday, April 04, 2008

All change on Stanik again..

President Yushchenko has today annulled a March 2004 ukaz of his predecessor, Leonid Kuchma, appointing Syuzanna Stanik a Constitutional Court judge, on a technical point of order.

Yesterday he reinstated her after sacking her in May 2007.

I suppose this means she is now not a CC judge after all... or maybe she has just got stuck in the revolving door entrance to the Constitutional Court building... or maybe the President's secretary got the dates on the ukazes muddled up...


elmer said...

So - Stanik's "mom" get several million dollars worth of property out of the blue for who-knows-what.

Yushchenko does the RIGHT THING and kicks her off the constitutional court for obvious corruption and accepting bribes.

The court then votes to reinstate her.

Do the judges in Ukraine have no standards, no shame?

Ooops - I didn't mean to ask a rhetorical question.

Ukraine - it's the Twilight Zone, where corruption and thuggery are rewarded, and no good deed goes unpunished.

There's a movie called "Blood Diamond," where the answer for everything is "TIA" - This Is Africa.

Ukraine appears to = TIA.

The corruption of Stanik and the courts in Ukraine just makes me PUKE.

Put Stanik's mom on the court - that would be more appropriate, since her mom is the nominally the one who got paid.

Anonymous said...

Feeling unwell after finding out about the Pres. order, Stanik went into the hospital. And she is heading back to court to fight her removal from KC.

LEvko said...

The entire Stanik business is a clear example of the shambles both within the CC and within the president's administration. Having sacked Stanik on May 1st 2007 for breaching her oath of office, it seems to me to be silly to now reappoint her, then dismiss her again a day later by annulling her March 25th 2004 appointment to the CC by Leonid Kuchma, on a technical issue. What is it all about?

Yushchenko's May 1st 2007 dismissal ukaz clearly suggests, that at that time, the president considered Stanik to be legitimately appointed by Kuchma.

Yushchenko's 'the only rule is that I make all the rules' attitude will only hasten his political demise.

What I find cynical is, as I wrote in my first post, this fiasco was slipped in under the cover of the Bucharest NATO summit.

elmer said...

LEvko, to me there is also one more thing.

And that is the answer to the question - how does one get rid of corrupt judges in Ukraine?

I don't think that we would have any disagreement that when a judge's mother gets several million dollars worth of property for no reason at all, there is cause for investigation of the judge - and for dismissal.

In other countries, the "bar", the legal associations of lawyers, have self-policing mechanisms in which a standard or code of ethics, for lawyers and judges, is promulgated and published for all to see.

And upon a breach of a judicial code of ethics or conduct, or the lawyer's code of ethics, anyone can initiate a complaint with the judicial council specifically set up for the purpose.

What mechanisms exist in Ukraine to address the problem of corrupt judges, other than further encouraging corruption?

In the context of justice and the judicial system, bribery is a very, very serious problem, and only a few people with money can have confidence in such a legal system.

How does it look when someone who has enslaved women into prostitution in Turkey, by grabbing up women from Ukraine or Macedonia, or elsewhere, is prosecuted in a Ukrainian court - and then walks away free?

What confidence can people have in a government whose actions are affirmed by a judge like Stanik, based on her mother receiving several million dollars worth of property for no apparent reason?

What kind of resentment does it breed in people who know all this is happening?

They vote with their feet - leave the country, or try to avoid and get around the corrupt government.

Stanik should do the honorable thing and stay in the hospital.

Or, even better, she should resign.

And she should identify who gave all that property to her mother.

Anonymous said...

it seems to me to be silly to now reappoint her, then dismiss her again a day later

But if this is the only way to a) legally comply with the Supreme Court's ruling and b) get Stanik off the bench legally then what is silly about it?
It is, ion the contrary, astute, strategic and completely legal. And still you do not approve? If this had been done by PM Tymoshenko would you then have applauded? How much of this is biased by your dislike of the Pres.?

And in regards to the timing was it really "slipped in under the cover" --- the press covered the story in detail and reported it. Could it not be that the appointment was done simply because of the deadline imposed by the court ruling?

Anonymous said...

The battle gets even more entrenched in technicalities. If she is dismissed can she recall her signatures???
"Stanik recalls all her signatures under Constitutional Court documents"

elmer said...

I'd have to say that if this is the only way to get a corrupt judge off the bench, then indeed it is the right thing to do.

And that's what is so very, very sad - that there are no other mechanisms by which lawyers and judges can maintain integrity in the court system in Ukraine.

Too bad that Yushchenko and the rest of the bunch currently in Ukrainian politics still engender corruption - by not seriously doing anything about it, until someone gets in their way.

Parliamentary immunity is still a HUGE factor in keeping corruption alive. Lazarenko was the only deputy stripped of immunity - so he ran to the US and tried to launder money. And got himself convicted of illegal money laundering.

In Ukraine, you have to get your own oligarch, or they play racquetball with your liver.

If the Rada and the regional governors and local councils were made accountable to the people, and if the Prosecutor General's office actually did its job, Ukraine would not have that problem.

UkrToday said...

At 5:26 PM, Elmer said...
answer to the question - how does one get rid of corrupt judges in Ukraine?

Ukraine's Constitution has a mechanism for considering and reviewing the conduct of judges. See chapter XII.

Article 149
Judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine are subject to the guarantees of independence and immunity and to the grounds for dismissal from office envisaged by Article 126 of this Constitution, and the requirements concerning incompatibility as determined in Article 127, paragraph two of this Constitution.

Complaints and allegation of wrong doing can be referred to the High Council of Justice who are entitled and empowered to review such allegations and any wrong doing by a Judge. The President and the Parliament are empowered to act on the recommendation and findings of the High Council of Justice. It is all about maintaining a proper and just process. The problem Yushchenko faces is that he is acting as an absolute ruler, judge jury and executioner. His attempt to circumvent rule of law by acting unconstituionally and illegally interfering with the operation and independence of t6eh courts serious undermines confidence in the judicial process and also win the office of the head of state. This is a clear case of the end not justifying the means. If you believe in democracy and rule of l;aw then a head of state must act in accordance with a states constitution and 5thge principles of justice. Yushchenko has clearly breached his duty of care and his oath top Ukraine.