Article 88

The judge of the Court of Injustices (*Madhalim*) is appointed by the *Khalifah*, or by the Supreme Judge. His accounting, discipline and removal are done by the *Khalifah* or by the Supreme Judge if the *Khalifah* had given him the powers to do so. However he cannot be removed during his investigation of a *Madhlamah* against the *Khalifah*, or the executive assistants, or the Supreme Judge; rather the power to remove

him in these circumstances is for the Court of Injustice Acts (*Madhalim*).

The judge of *Madhalim* is appointed by the *Khalifah*, or by the Supreme Judge. This is because the *Madhalim* is part of the judiciary, for they are the conveying of the *Shari’ah* rule by way of enforcement, and all the types of judges must be appointed by the *Khalifah*. This is confirmed by the Messenger of Allah’s ﷺ actions since he ﷺ used to appoint the judges as was explained previously. All this means that it is the *Khalifah* who appoints the judge of *Madhalim*, yet the Supreme Judge could appoint the judge of *Madhalim* if the *Khalifah* made provisions for this in his appointment clause. It is allowed for the main court of injustices (*Mahkamat Al-Madhalim*) in the centre of the State to examine only the *Madhalim* that occurred from the *Khalifah*, his assistants and the Supreme Judge. However, the branches of the court of injustices in the provinces examine the *Madhalim* that occur from the governors and the other State employees. The *Khalifah* has the right to give the Central Court of Injustices the authority of appointment and removal of the *Madhalim* judges in the branch *Madhalim* courts that come under its authority in the provinces.

The *Khalifah* is the one that appoints and removes the members of the main court of injustices in the centre of the State. As for the removal of the head of the central court of injustices - in other words, the *Madhalim* judge responsible in examining the removal of the *Khalifah* - it should in principle be the right of the *Khalifah* to remove him, as it is he who has the right to appoint him like all the judges. However, it is possible, if the power of removing the judge were left to the *Khalifah* during a case, then this power would lead to something prohibited. In such a situation the principle of

(الوسيلة إلى الحرام حرام)

*“the means to something forbidden is also forbidden”* would apply. The strong likelihood of such a scenario arising is enough for applying this principle.

This situation is when there is a case against the *Khalifah* or his assistants or his Supreme Judge (in case the *Khalifah* was given the mandatory power of appointing and removing the *Madhalim* judge). This is because keeping the mandatory power of removing the *Madhalim* judge in the hands of the *Khalifah* in this case would influence the verdict by the judge and accordingly it would limit the capability of the judge to remove the *Khalifah* or his assistants if deemed necessary. This mandatory power of removing the judge in this case is a means for *Haram*, or in other words, leaving it in the hand of the *Khalifah* in this case is prohibited.

As for the remaining cases, the rule remains as it is; in other words, the power of removing the *Madhalim* judge is left to the *Khalifah*, just like his appointment.

‹ ›