JSC expected to begin with interviews to fill deputy chief justice position
President Cyril Ramaphosa nominated four candidates for the position, which became vacant with the appointment of Mandisa Maya as Chief Justice in September 2024.
Currently, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga is acting as Maya's deputy but is due for retirement in July after serving a non-renewable term of 12 years on the Constitutional Court bench.
Ramaphosa's nomination of four candidates has resulted in the two-day sitting of the JSC, with Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo expected to be the first candidate to be interviewed by the JSC.
Northern Cape Judge President Pule Tlaletsi will follow, while the third and final candidate, Free State Judge President John Musi, will be interviewed on Thursday.
The president had nominated four candidates for the second-highest position in the judiciary; however, Supreme Court of Appeal President Mahube Molemela declined the nomination.
The nominations are in line with Section 174 Subsection 3 of the Constitution, which grants the President the authority to appoint the Chief Justice and their deputy, as well as the president of the Supreme Court of Appeal and their deputy, after consultation with the JSC and leaders of parties represented in the National Assembly.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
SAHRC faces sharp criticism amid debates over healthcare access for foreign nationals
The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) is facing backlash over its recent reaffirmation of the right to access healthcare services as a universal right for everyone within the Republic, a principle enshrined in the South African Constitution. The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) is facing backlash over its recent reaffirmation of the right to access healthcare services as a universal right for everyone within the Republic, a principle enshrined in the South African Constitution. The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has come under fire for asserting the universality of healthcare access within the country's borders, a stance that has spurred heated debate among political parties. In its recent communication to stakeholders, the SAHRC reaffirmed that every individual, including illegal foreign nationals, is entitled to healthcare services as enshrined in the South African Constitution. This position, however, has led to criticism from various corners, including the political party ActionSA. The party vehemently opposes what it terms the 'abuse' of the public healthcare system by illegal foreigners, arguing that this influx strains an already overburdened system. It claims that Section 27 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to access healthcare, has been misapplied, creating a scenario where the rights of South African citizens are compromised. The statement also details that this misinterpretation not only places pressure on healthcare resources but also dilutes the quality of care available to law-abiding South Africans. In May, ActionSA took a proactive step by proposing a set of constitutional amendments aimed at reforming these provisions, which they believe have been exploited to exacerbate the crisis of illegal immigration. The party also highlights that while the intentions of the Constitution are noble, its current application leads to an untenable situation where hospitals are overwhelmed and lacking essential resources. It further questioned why healthcare responsibilities seem to fall disproportionately on South Africa, suggesting that other nations enforce stricter regulations regarding medical insurance for incoming foreigners. 'No South African can enter another country legally without providing proof of medical insurance. This is because responsible governments do not budget to provide public services to foreign nationals without limits. Yet in South Africa, we are expected to carry this burden indefinitely,' argued ActionSA. Adding to the chorus of criticism, local activist and politician Anele Mda voiced concerns on social media, suggesting the SAHRC's actions represent an unconstitutional infringement on South Africans' rights. 'We definitely need to petition Parliament to address the unconstitutional infringement of SAHRC on the rights of South Africans, acting as an unrepentant demagogue to consistently use its power as a Chapter 9 institution to advance/conceal acts of criminality by foreigners,' said Mda. The SAHRC says it is engaging with healthcare administrators and relevant departments to foster better conditions for all healthcare users. In a public statement, the SAHRC urged both the Department of Home Affairs and the South African Police Service (SAPS) to fulfil their roles diligently to prevent citizens from taking matters into their own hands. [email protected] Saturday Star
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
ActionSA criticizes SAHRC for supporting undocumented migrants' right to public healthcare
ActionSA has hit back at the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) after the organisation clarified that everyone, including undocumented immigrants, may access the country's healthcare facilities. The party claimed that there is 'abuse' of the nation's public healthcare system by undocumented foreign nationals. In a statement issued on Wednesday, ActionSA Parliamentary Chief Whip Lerato Ngobeni accused the government of enabling an unsustainable burden on healthcare facilities by allowing undocumented migrants to access services without restriction. Ngobeni argued that the 'misapplication' of Section 27 of the Constitution has overwhelmed clinics and hospitals, placing the well-being of South African citizens at risk. "It is unconscionable that a public clinic in Johannesburg can report that over 70% of its patient records belong to foreign nationals. No South African can enter another country legally without proof of medical insurance, yet here we are expected to carry this burden indefinitely," Ngobeni said. ActionSA has proposed a suite of constitutional amendments aimed at restricting access to healthcare for undocumented migrants.
The Herald
5 hours ago
- The Herald
DA rejects Simelane, Nkabane departmental budgets
The DA has followed through on its threat to vote against departmental budget votes of ministers who are facing allegations of wrongdoing. This after the party this week voted against budgets of the departments of human settlements and higher education led by Thembi Simelane-Nkadimeng and Nobuhle Nkabane respectively. This decision was taken as a direct response to President Cyril Ramaphosa axing trade and industry deputy minister Andrew Whitfield, of the DA, last week for defying his order that none of the members of his executive were allowed to go to the US at the height of the diplomatic tensions between the two countries. The DA in response argued that Ramaphosa had been harsh on Whitfield and that it was not acceptable that he fired him for such a minor transgression while he still kept Simelane and Nkabane in his cabinet. Unlike Whitfield, the DA argued, Simelane was accused of corruption and Nkabane stood accused of lying to parliament. Instead of dealing with the two ministers who were facing serious allegations, Ramaphosa decided to axe Whitfield for going on a trip without getting permission, the DA argued. DA MP Luyolo Mphithi on Wednesday said his party was voting against Simelane's budget vote because of the corruption allegations she was facing. Mphithi said the DA was concerned that instead of firing Simelane, Ramaphosa had moved her from the department of justice to human settlements. 'You'd think that the response to this that the president would have shown minister Simelane the door, he did not. He asked for the report that he stayed with for three months,' said Mphithi. 'And even though the DA sustained pressure asking the president to act, he lacked courage to act and instead decided to dump minister Simelane at human settlements, one of the most important departments for South Africans.' 'It seems that this president does not take an issue with the fact that a person accused of corruption sits in his cabinet and will have to look after a budget of R30bn that is set aside for South Africans,' he said. Ideally, Mphithi said, the DA would not have a problem with voting for the department of human settlements' budget as it relates to people's housing and security but they could not do it because of the allegations faced by Simelane. 'The DA will always support the granting of funds to house the vulnerable at the same time fast-tracking jobs and growth to give many more South Africans the dignity of being able to buy and own their own houses,' he said. 'And though this budget and the department have many challenges under normal circumstances it would be supported. However, we sit with a minister who faces corruption allegations who has not been accountable to the South African public. And it is because of this we struggle support this particular budget.' Mphithi and the MK Party's Thulani Gumede raised several issues with the human settlements budget presented by Simelane, saying it was not dealing with some of the key issues faced by South Africans in the sector. 'A critical examination reveals a fundamental flaw, an overall real decline in the department's budget. None of its five main programmes demonstrates above-inflation increases,' said Gumede. 'This systemic underfunding of human settlements initiatives will inevitably worsen existing backlogs and impair the progressive realisation of adequate housing.' He said his party could not vote for as it would mean they accepted the decrease in allocation. 'I asserted during the committee meeting last week and I reiterate now that this draft budget must be rejected. It's real term decline across key programmes particularly in integrated human settlements and informal settlements upgrading directly contradicts the constitutional obligation to provide adequate housing and the strategic goals of the national development plans,' he said. 'Accepting this budget will constitute a retreat from addressing deeply entrenched structural inequalities and the pressing needs of the vulnerable communities for basic services and dignified living conditions.' TimesLIVE
