In world first, Mexican voters to elect all judges
MEXICO CITY - Mexico is set to become the world's only country to let voters elect all of their judges, sparking sharp disagreement about whether the reforms will diminish or strengthen criminal influence over the courts.
The government says the unprecedented popular vote for judges and magistrates at all levels -- including the Supreme Court -- is needed to address rampant corruption and impunity.
Critics argue it will undermine the judiciary's independence and warn the participation of controversial candidates -- such as a former lawyer for notorious drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman -- means it is doomed to backfire.
On Sunday, voters will choose several thousand federal, district and local judges and magistrates. Another election for the remainder will be held in 2027.
Not just anybody can run for one of these jobs. Candidates must have a law degree, experience in legal affairs, what is termed "a good reputation," and no criminal record.
Opponents, including judicial workers, have held a series of mass street protests in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the reforms.
"Justice is not something you vote for" and it needs people with experience and specialized knowledge, said Olimpia Rojas Luviano, a 28-year-old lawyer.
But Maria del Rocio Morales, a judge who is standing to be a magistrate in the capital, said she was happy to take part.
"For the good of my city and my country, I will do it," she said.
President Claudia Sheinbaum has played down signs that many voters are unlikely to take part in the vote .
"People are very intelligent and know who they are going to vote for," the veteran left-winger said.
According to surveys by the El Universal and El Pais newspapers, only half of voters know the election date, and only four out of 10 are certain they will participate.
- 'Rotten' judiciary -
While judicial elections are not new -- the United States and Bolivia, for instance, allow voters to pick some judges -- Mexico will be the only nation to elect them at all levels.
The reform was championed by Sheinbaum's predecessor and mentor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who criticized the judicial system as "rotten," corrupt and serving the interests of the political and economic elite.
Mexico has a long history of human rights violations that remain unpunished, including the disappearance of 43 students from a teacher training college in 2014, allegedly at the hands of drug traffickers and corrupt authorities.
Despite dozens of arrests, there have been no convictions.
AFP/File | VICTOR CRUZ
Mexico's criminal justice system "is profoundly ineffective at ensuring accountability for criminal violence and abuses by security forces," according to New York-based Human Right Watch.
Lopez Obrador frequently clashed with the judiciary, in particular the Supreme Court, which impeded some of his policies.
Sheinbaum, who replaced him in October, is a staunch supporter of the sweeping changes. Her opponents say they will eliminate democratic checks and balances.
Sheinbaum's ruling party already dominates both houses of Congress.
Opponents warn that elected judges could be more vulnerable to pressure from criminals, in a country where powerful drug cartels regularly use bribery and intimidation to influence officials.
Rights group Defensorxs has identified around 20 candidates it considers "high risk" for reasons including allegations of cartel links, corruption and sexual abuse, even though one of the requirements for running is to have no criminal record.
These people include Silvia Delgado, a former lawyer for "El Chapo," the Sinaloa cartel co-founder imprisoned in the United States.
Defensorxs describes her as a candidate who "defends alleged drug traffickers."
Delgado, who is standing to be a judge in the northern state of Chihuahua, told AFP: "Every person has the right to counsel."
Another controversial candidate seeking to be a district judge in the northern state of Durango served prison time in the United States for drug crimes, according to Defensorxs.
A major concern for voters is the complexity of a vote that will require people in Mexico City to mark nine ballots for local and federal judges.
"I think even the people who devised it don't know how to do it," said Rojas Luviano.
By Jean Arce
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
14 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
MTN faces legal reckoning: Turkcell's $4.2 billion claim exposes alleged corruption and bribery
A $4.2-billion corruption claim, including allegations of bribery and geopolitical interference: MTN's long-running Irancell saga is finally knocking at the doors of South Africa's highest court. More than two decades since Iran issued its first private mobile network licence, a tangled web of geopolitics, bribery allegations and courtroom battles has landed squarely at the feet of South Africa's Constitutional Court. First, some background. The stakes? A $4.2-billion claim. The claimant? Turkish mobile giant Turkcell. The accused? The MTN Group, South Africa's telecommunications crown jewel. At the heart of the matter lies the 2005 award of Iran's mobile licence to MTN – after Turkcell had already been named the winner. Now, after years of legal ping-pong, Turkcell's claim of corruption and foul play is finally inching towards a South African trial. MTN is trying to stop that from happening. The smoking gun Turkcell's legal counsel, New York-based King & Spalding's Cedric Soule, doesn't mince his words. 'MTN sought to obtain illegally what it could not win through honest competition,' he told Daily Maverick. The allegations, which are laid out in filings and interviews, read like an international spy thriller: Bribing foreign officials, including Javid Ghorbanoghli, then Iranian deputy foreign minister for the Africa Bureau, and South Africa's then ambassador to Tehran, Yusuf Saloojee; Trading influence at the United Nations nuclear watchdog, promising to help Iran avoid sanctions; Promising prohibited defence equipment, including Rooivalk attack helicopters and frequency-hopping radios, to sweeten the deal (Turkcell claims it has evidence, as yet undisclosed, that MTN communicated with Denel and Iranian officials). According to Turkcell, all this happened so that MTN could elbow its way into a $31-billion mobile market and walk away with the licence that should have gone to Turkcell. The deal was sealed days after South Africa abstained from a crucial vote related to Iran's nuclear programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in late 2005. The vote concerned whether to report Iran to the UN Security Council for failing to comply with its IAEA Safeguards Agreement. But the abstention was seen as a deliberate act, motivated by concerns about the procedural fairness of the resolution and a desire to maintain the IAEA's authority. Specifically, South Africa's representative to the IAEA, Abdul Samad Minty, argued that the resolution was flawed and premature, as it bypassed the IAEA board of governors' role in the verification process. Minty said at the time that 'South Africa's commitment is to the IAEA's integrity and impartiality and is reluctant to undermine the agency's authority'. South Africa has also enjoyed good relations with Iran. Crucially, this abstention was not an isolated incident. South Africa also abstained on similar resolutions in 2006, highlighting a consistent stance on the matter. Soule says Turkcell 'won the licence fair and square' and that MTN's conduct undermined the integrity of international business. 'This case is about accountability,' he says. 'And it belongs in a South African courtroom.' A strong rebuttal MTN, for its part, has always dismissed Turkcell's claims as 'a fabric of lies' and a 'frivolous shakedown'. Its legal team, speaking about background exclusively to Daily Maverick, continues to lean heavily on the Hoffmann Report – a 2013 internal investigation led by British judge Lord Leonard Hoffmann. This report found 'no conspiracy,' labelled Turkcell's key witness a 'fantasist' and said MTN executives were in the clear. It even found that although a $400,000 payment had been made to an Iranian intermediary, the money's purpose couldn't be determined – and was irrelevant to Turkcell's central claims. MTN also argues that Turkcell failed to comply with Iranian laws after a shift in government policy. 'They failed to adjust their shareholding in time,' MTN argues, 'and were lawfully excluded from the process.' As for the most salacious allegations – military gear and political favours – MTN says it would be impossible for its actions to have altered Iranian legislation or international diplomacy. The Hoffmann Report indicates that a general election took place in Iran on 20 February 2004, which resulted in a new parliament taking office in May 2004. This new Iranian parliament was overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives who opposed the government's policy of privatisation and foreign inward investment, particularly in relation to the cellphone service. The Single Article Act, designed to strengthen financial discipline, stemmed from this shift in parliamentary power. Snookered in ownership Following the Single Article Act, the parliament passed another significant piece of legislation in February 2005, known as the Irancell Act. This act imposed further conditions, requiring that 51% of the shares in the operating company be held by Iranian entities and that all board decisions require the approval of at least 50% of the shareholders. This was understood to be due to concerns about foreign entities becoming heavily involved in what was considered critical infrastructure in Iran. These legislative changes created significant obstacles for Turkcell, which had initially won the tender with a plan to control 70% of the shares. 'Turkcell was given multiple opportunities to negotiate with its existing partners to reach a compliant deal, but they didn't do that or they were not able to do that,' MTN's legal team argues. The team points to a specific deadline – 4 September 2004 – when the Ministry of Telecommunications demanded a compliant deal from Turkcell, which the Turkish company failed to deliver. 'Turkcell has never explained how MTN's [alleged] corrupt practices would have led to a change in national legislation,' MTN's lawyers emphasise, arguing that their client was simply better positioned to navigate Iran's evolving regulatory landscape. After Turkcell's 2012 US complaint, MTN commissioned the independent investigation led by Lord Hoffmann, a retired British Supreme Court judge. But Turkcell has 'strongly rejected MTN's repeated reliance on the Hoffmann Report', with Soule calling it 'unreliable and irrelevant' to current proceedings. The Turkish company has criticised the investigation, claiming: Conflicts of interest: Lord Hoffmann's daughter, Jennifer, worked for MTN Mobile Money during the relevant 2004-2006 period and also in the MTN Banking joint venture with Standard Bank, which was involved in the financial transfers. 'Lord Hoffmann had a huge conflict of interest,' Soule argues. Lack of independence: The committee was composed of MTN non-executive directors and used MTN's own external lawyers (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) instead of independent counsel. The committee even thanked the Islamic Republic of Iran for support – problematic given Iran's alleged involvement in the wrongdoing. Insufficient rigour: The committee didn't actually interview key witnesses like former MTN director in Iran Chris Kilowan, then commercial director Irene Charnley (to whom Jenny Hoffmann reported) or former MTN CEO Phuthuma Nhleko to determine credibility, relying only on written statements prepared with lawyers' help. The committee did not independently seek documents, relying instead on what MTN's lawyers provided. Turkcell characterises the report as essentially 'a PR exercise' to review curated evidence and reach predetermined conclusions. The company declined to participate owing to concerns about the committee's structure and independence. Where we are now In April this year, the Supreme Court of Appeal handed Turkcell what it called a 'procedural win' – confirming that South African courts do have jurisdiction to hear the matter. It dismissed MTN's argument that South Africa cannot police corporate misconduct committed abroad. 'Not on our watch' was how the court framed its message to South African firms doing business in murky waters. MTN is now seeking leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court in a last-ditch effort to stop the case from going to trial. Turkcell has filed its opposition. 'The report never seriously asked: what if we did do some of these things?' says Soule. 'It only asked: is Turkcell's story perfect?' MTN has argued that Iranian courts would offer a fair alternative venue for the dispute, but Turkcell has strongly rejected that suggestion. The Turkish company cites 'well-documented concerns regarding judicial independence and due process' in what it describes as a 'religious dictatorship where dissent is not tolerated'. More practically, Turkcell argues that Iranian courts wouldn't be able to compel MTN executives, who reside in South Africa, to appear and testify – a crucial limitation given the nature of the allegations. But the fact remains that Turkcell also refused to participate in the Hoffmann inquiry, claiming its witnesses would not be safe and due process could not be guaranteed in Iran. Although the Supreme Court of Appeal agreed that Iranian law would apply to aspects of the case, Turkcell sees this as its 'only and probably final opportunity' to get a substantive ruling on MTN's alleged misconduct. If it proceeds, this would become one of South Africa's most explosive corporate trials. MTN also faces what amounts to a 'reputational trial in the court of public opinion', regardless of the legal outcome. The company holds a 49% minority stake in Irancell, which it says is not under MTN Group's operational control. The case also highlights claims of a complex interplay between corporate interests and state foreign policy. President Cyril Ramaphosa served as MTN Group chairperson (a non-executive role) more than 12 years ago, resigning from the position in May 2013. But MTN asserts that any suggestion of improper benefit from his time at the company is 'false and misleading', and emphasises that it does not conduct business in alignment with government foreign policy. The Constitutional Court is expected to announce its decision on MTN's leave to appeal within the next three months. MTN's other Iran headache MTN just can't catch a break in the Middle East, with new scrutiny coming from the US. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik has written a letter urging Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon) to investigate its ties with MTN. Her letter highlights concerns about MTN's links to Iran, Hamas and President Cyril Ramaphosa's finances. She calls for BNY Mellon to halt its role as the bank handling MTN's shares in the US, cooperate with US authorities, and disclose its involvement with MTN and its Iranian affiliates. A pending lawsuit, Zobay v MTN, accuses MTN of financing terrorism, as defined by the US Anti-Terrorism Act. Stefanik claims significant legal precedent exists, which MTN denies. Senior MTN executive Nompilo Morafo rejected Stefanik's claims in an interview with Daily Maverick, stating that the allegations have not been tested in court. Morafo also dismissed accusations against Ramaphosa, who chaired MTN 12 years ago, and insisted MTN has no operational control in Iran, holding only a minority share in Irancell. MTN says it 'remains committed to human rights', and its directors have pushed for a pivot to the company's pan-African strategy, despite litigation and pressure from US legislators. DM
eNCA
a day ago
- eNCA
Trump hails 'giant win' after top court curbs judges
US President Donald Trump said Friday he can now push through a raft of controversial policies after the Supreme Court handed him a "giant win" by curbing the ability of lone judges to block his powers nationwide. In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by individual district court judges likely exceed their authority. "This was a tremendous win," Trump told reporters in a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. "I want to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling." Trump said he would now proceed with "so many policies" that had been "wrongly" blocked, including his bid to end birthright citizenship, and stopping funding for transgender people and "sanctuary cities" for migrants. US Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop "rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation." Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a "terrifying step toward authoritarianism." Trump however rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House. "This is really the opposite of that," Trump said. "This really brings back the Constitution." Trump separately hailed a "great ruling" by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons at public schools. The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on US soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly contested policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future US presidents. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by judges around the country -- both Democratic and Republican appointees – since he took office in January. Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities. - 'No right is safe' - Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda, but such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, authored the majority opinion joined by the other five conservative justices. "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," wrote Barrett, who has previously been a frequent target of Trump loyalists over previous decisions that went against the president. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying "no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates." Trump's initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, welcomed it as a "GIANT WIN." The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction. The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters. Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court's ruling "sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government." Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens. Trump said that the policy "was meant for the babies of slaves," dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s. By Danny Kemp And Chris Lefkow
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
US Supreme Court may rule on allowing enforcement of Trump birthright citizenship limits
The administration has made an emergency request for the justices to scale back injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts blocking Trump's directive nationwide. The judges found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a 'green card' holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or 'universal,' injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order 'reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors.' An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a 'permanent domicile and residence in the United States.' Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties – Republican and Democratic – and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties.
