Must a judge's statement made during his tenure regarding a prior ruling be accepted?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judiciary
Primary text
If a judge states during his tenure, 'I ruled for so-and-so regarding such-and-such,' his statement must be accepted, regardless of whether he specifies, 'I judged upon two just male witnesses,' or 'I heard their evidence and knew their reliability,' or 'I judged based on his refusal to swear (nukul),' or 'So-and-so confessed to me regarding a right for so-and-so, and I ruled based on that confession.' This is the position held by Abu Hanifa, Al-Shafi'i, and Abu Yusuf. The justification is that since the judge possesses the authority to rule, he possesses the authority to confess to that ruling, similar to a husband informing of divorce or a master informing of manumission. Furthermore, if he reported seeing certain facts and ruled based on them, it would be accepted, as it is here.
Supporting text
It is narrated from Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan that his statement is not accepted unless one just man testifies alongside him, because it constitutes informing of a right against another person, thus it is not accepted based on a single person, similar to testimony. The evidence supporting acceptance is that the witness does not possess the authority to establish what he reports.