The National Bar Association of Panama has publicly endorsed a controversial Supreme Court ruling to seal its internal records. This move places the nation’s largest lawyers’ guild directly at odds with civil society groups who are calling the decision a major setback for judicial transparency and public accountability.
Maritza Cedeño Vásquez, president of the bar association, defended the court’s position this week. She argued the primary focus should remain on judicial efficiency, not public access to internal deliberations. The court’s plenary session recently approved two agreements classifying the minutes of its discussions and visitor logs to judicial offices as confidential documents.
“In general, these are discussions about processes, and the processes themselves should not be public,” Cedeño stated. [Translated from Spanish] She expressed direct criticism of broadcasting court hearings, suggesting a televised process becomes “contaminated” by external influence. “Justice is not beholden to public opinion. It must be determined solely by what is contained in a case file,” she emphasized. [Translated from Spanish]
Cedeño also questioned the public’s interest in knowing how individual magistrates vote during plenary sessions. She believes the outcome of a ruling is the only relevant detail for citizens and litigants. Her comments arrive during a period of intense national scrutiny over judicial independence and opacity.
Civil Society Warns of Eroding Trust in Judicial Branch
Transparency advocates have reacted with alarm to both the court’s decision and the bar association’s support. They argue the principle of open justice is fundamentally under threat. For these groups, the issue strikes at the core of democratic legitimacy.
Olga de Obaldía, executive director of the Foundation for the Development of Citizen Freedom, the Panamanian chapter of Transparency International, leads the criticism. She contends the court’s action will further weaken public confidence in an institution already suffering from low trust.
“The principal problem with these decisions is their effect of weakening trust and democratic legitimacy, which is the central objective of open justice principles,” de Obaldía warned. [Translated from Spanish] She views transparency not as an optional feature but as an essential component for maintaining the credibility of judicial decisions in the eyes of the public.
De Obaldía acknowledges some information may legitimately require confidentiality. She insists any restriction must be partial, justified, and temporary rather than a structural and permanent closure. A blanket classification, in her analysis, contradicts international standards designed to balance judicial independence with necessary public oversight.
The context for this debate is notably tense. Recent surveys, including one from the International Center for Political and Social Studies, consistently show deep public distrust in Panama’s justice system. Advocates fear this ruling will deepen that existing crisis of confidence.
Defining the Limits of Judicial Secrecy and Public Interest
The debate centers on where to draw the line between necessary judicial privacy and the public’s right to oversee a state institution. Cedeño and the bar association frame the issue as one of protecting judicial processes from external pressure and media spectacle. Their stance prioritizes the perceived purity of legal reasoning above all else.
For her part, Cedeño downplayed the significance of sealing visitor logs. She characterized meetings with magistrates, including those conducted by her own association, as largely institutional or academic. These often involve coordinating training sessions for judges and prosecutors, she explained.
Transparency advocates sharply disagree with this characterization. They worry confidential logs could obscure inappropriate ex-parte communications or influence peddling. The lack of a public record, they argue, makes proper oversight impossible. This is especially concerning for internal matters like budget management or judicial appointments within the branch.
Former congresswoman and ex-attorney general Ana Matilde Gómez entered the fray with a nuanced position. She agrees internal judicial debates are not inherently obligated to be public. The symbolic message sent by the court’s sweeping decision, however, troubles her deeply given Panama’s current social climate.
Gómez suggests the ruling fosters an appearance of secrecy that can be more damaging than the substance of the hidden discussions themselves. In a society already grappling with corruption scandals, she believes the judiciary should err on the side of visible openness.
A Meeting Timing That Fuels Speculation
The political dimensions of this conflict gained texture from a specific meeting. Bar President Maritza Cedeño held a courtesy visit with Supreme Court magistrates on January 14. Her guests included Court President María Cristina Chen Stanziola, Vice President Olmedo Arrocha Osorio, and Magistrate Maribel Cornejo Batista.
That meeting occurred just one day after the full Supreme Court of Justice of Panama issued the two agreements shielding its plenary session minutes and visitor registries. The close timing has led some observers to question the nature of the discussions and whether the court’s decision was coordinated with the bar association.
Neither Cedeño nor the court’s magistrates have detailed the agenda of that January meeting. Cedeño has stated publicly that her association routinely holds such institutional meetings. The proximity to a major transparency ruling, however, has made this particular visit a focal point for critics who see an alignment between the bar’s leadership and the court’s restrictive stance.
The court itself has not provided detailed justification for its decision beyond broad references to protecting judicial independence. This lack of a specific, case-driven rationale has fueled accusations that the move is preemptively defensive, aimed at avoiding future scrutiny rather than addressing a present, identifiable threat.
Diverging Visions for Panama’s Judicial Future
The clash reveals two competing visions for Panama’s judiciary. One vision, championed by the bar association president, seeks a system insulated from public opinion and media pressure, where speed and finality are paramount. The other, advocated by civil society, demands a system that earns legitimacy through observable fairness and accountability, even if that process appears messier from the outside.
Cedeño repeatedly redirects the conversation to judicial efficiency. “A delayed justice is not justice,” she concluded in her remarks, framing timeliness as the paramount concern for ordinary citizens. [Translated from Spanish] This argument resonates with many who have experienced the frustrations of a slow-moving legal system.
Transparency advocates like de Obaldía reject this as a false choice. They argue transparency and efficiency are not mutually exclusive goals. “Transparency is not an idol. Transparency is a tool,” de Obaldía explained, stating its purpose is to prevent corruption and strengthen democratic trust. [Translated from Spanish] From this perspective, opaque systems are more prone to dysfunction and delay, not less.
The court’s decision now stands as official policy. No formal legal challenge has been announced, leaving public debate and political pressure as the primary tools for those opposing the secrecy measures. The ruling likely affects ongoing high-profile cases, including those related to major infrastructure projects and political figures.
This controversy unfolds as the Supreme Court handles other significant matters, such as the case involving the multi-million dollar fine against a bridge consortium. The new secrecy rules will govern the internal discussions on these and all future cases, placing a permanent veil over the deliberation process of Panama’s highest court.