In the most volatile moments, when rumors roar louder than facts and every headline feels like a verdict, courts are forced into an impossible spotlight—expected to reveal everything, yet condemned if they reveal too much. It’s in this fragile space, where suspicion grows in every unanswered question, that a single explanation, or its absence, can shatter faith in justice… Continues…

Ultimately, the legitimacy of courts is not secured by sweeping promises of openness, but by the quiet, repeated discipline of explaining how and why they draw their lines. When judicial institutions consistently describe the principles that govern disclosure and restraint, they transform what might look like secrecy into a recognizable framework. The public may not see every document or hear every conversation, but they can see the structure within which those choices are made.

Over time, that structure becomes a reference point rather than a mystery. Disagreements will remain—about verdicts, about redactions, about what should have been said sooner or more plainly. Yet when people can trace decisions back to stated standards instead of imagined agendas, criticism becomes sharper but also more constructive. In that environment, trust is not blind deference; it is a hard-earned confidence that even in silence, the courts are still answerable.