Beyond Reproach: Why Public Confidence Demands Restrictions on High Officials’ Social Lives

‘Judges, magistrates, and officials in sensitive positions must accept stricter limits on their social lives as part of the sacrifice that comes with the job’

Qs & As

By Lex

The foundational principle of any effective justice system or anti-corruption body rests on public confidence. When the integrity of its leaders is called into question, the entire institution is undermined. This discussion explores the stringent ethical principles and codes of conduct that govern judges and chief investigators. We examine how and why their need to avoid even the suspicion of bias, conflict of interest, or undue influence necessitates significant restrictions on their private social lives — restrictions that ordinary citizens do not face — and what happens when those lines are blurred.

* The acting head of the Financial Crimes Commission (FCC) has come under criticism in some quarters for attending a non-official diplomatic reception where he was photographed interacting socially. Among those present was a former Minister whom the FCC had arrested and charged with corruption in Feb 2025. Based on established codes of good conduct and good governance principles, would the acceptance of invitations and attendance at non-official functions be generally considered improper?

The sensitive mission of the FCC requires its officers to be totally above any suspicion of impropriety. This principle is violated when an official’s conduct creates a reasonable perception of bias or undue influence.

* Does this mean that a judge or a high official of an anti-corruption body is free to accept a friendly dinner invitation from a private person or company, the way an ordinary person might?

As long as their position is not undermined by any suspicion of impropriety, judges or high officials can accept invitations such as attending a dinner, wedding, or funeral. While they have the right to a normal life, their actions are strictly subject to the ethical restrictions their office demands.

The acceptance of such invitations must be assessed to ensure it does not undermine their position by creating any reasonable suspicion of impropriety, conflict of interest, or influence.

* Doesn’t this raise a critically important ethical issue for both judges as well as for heads of anti-corruption agencies — especially the need to maintain impartiality and the appearance of impartiality?

Judges and other officials must be impartial. This is a foundational principle of the rule of law and a fair judicial system. Impartiality ensures that decisions are based solely on objective criteria, the facts, and the law, rather than on bias, prejudice, or improper influence.

* Do codes of conduct require judges and anti-corruption heads to observe “significant restrictions on their social lives” — restrictions that do not apply to ordinary citizens? If so, why?

With or without a formal code of ethics, common sense and prudence require judges and other officials who occupy important functions to conduct themselves in society in a manner that avoids opprobrium.

* In balancing a judge/an official’s need to “participate in society” against the duty to avoid impropriety, which duty is ultimately given paramount importance by prevailing codes of conduct?

Judges and other high-ranking officials should not become completely isolated from the community. They are expected to remain connected to the world in order to be effective. This balance is achieved by carefully navigating public life to ensure it does not compromise their role as neutral judges or officials.

* If an official says, “I didn’t know the bad guy would be there,” is that a good enough excuse under these rules?

An official’s statement of “I didn’t know the bad guy would be there” is unlikely to be a sufficient excuse on its own. A lack of knowledge can only be considered an excuse in very limited circumstances, primarily when the official’s actions are judged by a standard of reasonableness.

* It could be argued that officials in sensitive posts — such as those dealing with prosecution, anti-corruption, money laundering, and taxation, as well as judges and magistrates — have to accept more limits on their private social lives than the rest of us. That’s the sacrifice which comes with the job, isn’t it?

Yes. Judges, magistrates, and officials occupying sensitive positions have to accept more limits on their private social lives than the rest of their fellow citizens. That is the sacrifice that comes with the job.

* What is the main danger if a judge or chief investigator attends a non-official party and meets people who have cases in their courts or are under investigation?

The main danger is the perception of partiality or impropriety, which can undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system and the work of the high official.

* If a judge meets a lawyer or a business leader at a social event, how does that create an “unfair opportunity” for the other side in a court case?

When a judge meets socially with a lawyer or business leader involved in a case before them, it can create an unfair opportunity by raising doubts about the judge’s impartiality. This is due to the ethical principles requiring judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

* When an official gets an invitation, do codes of conduct require that the official should take steps to check the host and the event before they agree to attend?

It is best practice for officials to research the host and the event to avoid conflicts, ensure legitimacy, and prevent reputational damage.

* What is the precautionary principle? Does it mean they should almost always say “no” if they’re not 100% sure?

Yes. It is much better to politely decline an invitation than risk being criticized for improper conduct.

* If a judge or investigator attends a low-risk event and accidentally bumps into someone involved in a case, what is the safest way to handle that quick, unexpected conversation?

The safest way for a judge or investigator to handle an accidental encounter and quick, unexpected conversation with someone involved in a case is to immediately excuse themselves politely, avoid discussing the case, and document the interaction as soon as possible in an official record.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 21 November 2025