"A/79/362: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite Justice is not for sale: the improper influence of economic actors on the judiciary", 23 October 2024

In a climate of increasing economic inequality, corporations and wealthy individuals in many places use their financial clout to infringe on the independence of the judiciary by attempting to intervene in processes to determine who becomes a judge, and to lobby sitting judges to make them more receptive to their aims. These actors also weaponize justice systems to achieve their goals, bringing strategic lawsuits against public participation that masquerade as a defence of private interests, but in fact seek to suppress legitimate criticism, oversight or resistance to their activities. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Satterthwaite, examines improper economic influence on judicial systems, recommending that ethics and integrity systems should be strengthened, loopholes closed, and judges, prosecutors and lawyers do their part to address these harms. If not, while some voices are privileged by justice systems, others will be shut out or silenced, with devastating impacts for human rights.

... [f]or too long, economic capture has flown below the radar of those working to protect justice systems from improper influence... the Special Rapporteur provides a conceptual framework... [f]irst, she describes the contours of the problem. Second, she examines two manifestations of the issue in greater depth: orchestrated attempts to reshape justice systems to favour economic actors by targeting the judiciary, and the calculated exploitation of the outsized power of wealthy actors within justice systems through the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).

Improper economic influence occurs when:

(a) Economic actors, including corporations, executives and extremely wealthy individuals;

(b) Conduct activities using powerful economic means;

(c) That have, or may be seen to have, an improper influence on the structure of justice systems or the carrying out of judicial functions, with the apparent purpose of exploiting the justice system to further their specific aims;

(d) With the impact that processes designed to operate fairly and transparently to ensure judicial independence and equality before the law are systematically distorted to favour improper aims.

Across the world, there is compelling evidence that wealthy actors use murky and unaccountable methods to target justice systems...

... powerful economic actors may seek to exploit loopholes in ethics and integrity rules in organized efforts to reshape justice systems to serve their long-term aims.

Companies and wealthy individuals use SLAPPs in an effort to shield their business interests or protect their reputations in the face of legitimate investigation, criticism or protest. In doing so, SLAPPs convert public concerns into private legal disputes, creating a climate in which activists may be punished, intimidated or deterred from engaging in human rights-promoting activities in the future. Most importantly for the mandate holder, SLAPPs claimants seek to enlist judges inappropriately in this effort.