Lack of accountability mechanisms
Lack of Accountability Mechanisms: Overview
Accountability mechanisms refer to the systems, laws, or procedures that ensure that individuals or institutions—especially those wielding power—are held responsible for their actions and decisions. This includes:
Transparency
Oversight (judicial, parliamentary, or independent bodies)
Remedies for violations
Checks and balances
When these mechanisms are absent or weak, it leads to lack of accountability, which can cause abuse of power, human rights violations, corruption, or arbitrary decision-making.
Legal Principles
Rule of Law: A key principle ensuring that everyone, including the government, is subject to the law and accountable for their actions.
Separation of Powers: Ensures that no branch of government (executive, legislative, judiciary) operates without checks from the others.
Right to Effective Remedy: Under international law (e.g., Article 2(3) ICCPR), individuals must have access to judicial or other remedies if their rights are violated.
Transparency and Oversight: Mechanisms such as judicial review, parliamentary committees, and independent watchdogs ensure actions of authorities can be scrutinized.
Case Law Illustrating Lack of Accountability Mechanisms
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803) — United States
Facts: William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to compel Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission as a justice of the peace.
Issue: Whether the courts have the authority to review acts of the executive branch and declare them unconstitutional.
Decision: The Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, affirming that the courts can hold government officials accountable by invalidating unlawful actions.
Significance: Highlighted the importance of accountability through judicial review; without it, executive actions could go unchecked.
2. A v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004) — United Kingdom
Facts: Individuals were detained without charge under anti-terrorism legislation.
Issue: Whether indefinite detention without trial was lawful and accountable.
Decision: The House of Lords ruled that indefinite detention without adequate safeguards violated human rights.
Significance: The case exposed the dangers of lack of accountability in security measures and affirmed the need for judicial oversight of executive powers.
3. Ocalan v. Turkey (2005) — European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Facts: Abdullah Ocalan, leader of the PKK, was captured and sentenced in proceedings lacking transparency and fairness.
Issue: Whether the Turkish state was accountable for violations of fair trial rights.
Decision: The Court found violations due to lack of effective judicial oversight and inadequate accountability of the authorities involved in his capture and trial.
Significance: Demonstrated that accountability mechanisms must exist even in politically sensitive cases.
4. Public Prosecutor v. Mohamed Nasheed (2015) — Maldives
Facts: Mohamed Nasheed, former President, faced politically motivated prosecution without transparent procedures.
Issue: Whether the judicial and prosecutorial processes lacked accountability.
Decision: The court proceedings were widely criticized for political interference and lack of impartial accountability mechanisms.
Significance: Showed how absence of independent oversight leads to misuse of prosecutorial power.
5. Tănase v. Moldova (2010) — European Court of Human Rights
Facts: Moldova’s Constitutional Court had members appointed without proper vetting, leading to allegations of bias.
Issue: Whether the appointment process undermined judicial independence and accountability.
Decision: The Court found that the lack of adequate accountability and transparency in appointments compromised judicial independence.
Significance: Emphasized the need for accountability in institutional appointments to safeguard rule of law.
Summary of Key Points
| Case | Jurisdiction | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison | United States | Judicial review essential for government accountability. |
| A v. Secretary of State | United Kingdom | Judicial oversight required for detention and security powers. |
| Ocalan v. Turkey | ECHR | Fair trial and state accountability vital even in security cases. |
| Public Prosecutor v. Nasheed | Maldives | Lack of independent prosecutorial oversight enables abuse. |
| Tănase v. Moldova | ECHR | Transparent and accountable judicial appointments protect independence. |
Additional Commentary
Lack of Accountability often leads to unchecked power, arbitrary actions, and erosion of trust in public institutions.
Strong accountability mechanisms include independent judiciary, free press, parliamentary oversight, anti-corruption bodies, and public participation.
Courts worldwide are increasingly emphasizing accountability as a safeguard of fundamental rights and democracy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments