Latest news with #JudicialServiceCommission
News24
17 hours ago
- Politics
- News24
JSC to interview three senior judges for Deputy Chief Justice position
JSC/X From 2 to 3 July, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) will convene interviews for the Deputy Chief Justice position. The position has been vacant since Chief Justice Mandisa Maya assumed her role at the apex of the judiciary on 1 September 2024.
Eyewitness News
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
JSC expected to begin with interviews to fill deputy chief justice position
JOHANNESBURG - The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is expected to begin with interviews to fill the deputy chief justice position on Wednesday. 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.
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Tribunal hears Judge President Selby Mbenenge could not take ‘no' for an answer
Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge was persistent in his demands for nude photographs from court secretary Andiswa Mengo, the tribunal has heard. The mammoth Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Conduct Tribunal probing allegations of sexual harassment against Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge heard expert evidence on Monday of his relentless persistence and harassment. Mbenenge (64) communicated various demands, including for nude photographs, in 47 WhatsApp conversations with the complainant, court secretary Andiswa Mengo (41), it was revealed on Monday, 30 June. The conversations have been entered as evidence and have not been contested. On Monday, Dr Lisa Vetten, a renowned expert on gender-based violence and sexual harassment, interpreted the depth and extent of Mbenenge's workplace transgressions. Advocates Musi Sikhakane and Griffiths Madonsela, for Mbenenge, have claimed the 'relationship' between the Judge President and the secretary had been 'consensual'. Bible verses to ward off approaches Mbenenge, who is also a pastor, was not even put off by a Bible verse, Psalm 1, Verse 1, sent to him by Mengo after he had suggested they physically meet. Vetten set out how, before this, the Judge President had bombarded her with requests for photographs and had asked her 14 times to discuss her favourite sexual position, to which she did not respond. Even a response by Mengo that her 'exhaustion was extreme' and that she was still at work did not deter her pursuer, testified Vetten. Mbenenge continued, after hours, to intrude upon her personal space, often late at night, sexually harassing her. Defining future office life While Sikhakane and Madonsela had objected to the late bringing of Vetten's expert testimony, the chairperson, retired Judge Bernard Ngoepe, allowed this. Evidence leader advocate Salomé Scheepers and Mengo's counsel, advocate Nasreen Rajab-Budlender, have put up a gargantuan case which will define future workplace relations, depending on this ruling. It will also highlight the responsibilities that come with status and control for men in positions of power. Vetten clearly set out in no uncertain terms the definitions of sexual harassment in the workplace and the codes and norms that governed these. She said that the 2022 Code of Good Practice on the Elimination and Prevention of Sexual Harassment in the workplace encompassed four types of contact and behaviour. 'This includes physical, unwanted, touching, rape, verbal (as in spoken) and non-verbal (in terms of sending pictures or creating a hostile work environment) and then quid-pro-quo, which amounts to coercion,' she said. To qualify, she added, there needed to be a persistence about the behaviour. 'Jokes, whistling, persisting in asking someone out on a date. However, some egregious acts need only occur once, like the grabbing of a crotch, which is grossly offensive'. In an 'ideal world', Vetten said, 'we should all be able to say no, stop, this makes me uncomfortable' and the code recognised that this was not always possible'. Power matrix One of the reasons sexual harassment was so difficult to tackle and deal with, said Vetten, was because of gender power imbalances, which needed to be carefully examined in each case. 'Was someone in a position to say 'no' to clearly communicate and tell someone to stop? In law, those kinds of situations do occur,' she told the tribunal. She noted there was a difference between 'submission' and 'consent'. In the case of a rape when a victim begged her rapist to wear a condom, this could not be considered consent. 'One can say 'yes' because saying 'yes' might be less worse than two terrible choices – facing violence and a sexually transmitted disease'. Also, consent to one type of behaviour did not necessarily imply consent to any other behaviours that followed, she said. Added to the mix were the swirling stereotypes of men and women in society, which exist and which have 'clouded thinking'. 'There is this idea that men and women have different sexual urges, men more urgent. The other idea that has developed is that men pursue, and it is up to women to say 'yes' or resist'. We lived in a society which viewed men as more active sexually and women as 'far more passive, waiting for men to approach them'. Active sexuality in men was recognised and admired, and the general idea was that men 'must persist because women are in need of a bit of persuasion is real'. Gender inequality also manifested in a range of other ways, including who performed what work. Workplaces were governed by codes of conduct, regulations and hierarchies which inform workplace structures. 'If you look at the CEOs, they will predominantly be men. Who is likely to hold what position, and what we associate with this, matters. A secretary might make tea or be on the service side, there to listen and carry out instructions.' 'This is why we have workplace law to determine who is overstepping their mandate. Workplaces in different industries have different norms, but they are highly structured.' Saying 'no' to someone who is your senior 'is difficult', said Vetten. 'Then, if the person has a lot of status and credibility, who is more likely to be believed or seen as more credible? Whose word will carry more weight?' Silence and evasion Many of Mbenenge's suggestions and propositions were deferred or ignored by the complainant in an attempt to escape them. At times, there were even long silences. Asked whether, in this instance, there had been a blurring of workplace boundaries, Vetten replied, 'Very much so. To begin with, contacting her after hours after their very first contact, which follows as a result of [him] seeing her earlier in the day with her child and asking about its father.' This grooms her for further questions with regard to the number of children she had and whether 'I can trust you'. 'Why would that be relevant?' Vetten asked. Why would the Judge President, after this, request nude photographs of her upper body as proof that he could trust her? 'Why would you ask for a personal picture? She is a secretary, and you are asking for pictures without explaining why you want them. This is an expression of power – people who can demand things of others without explanation.'
Daily Maverick
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
ConCourt turns 30, facing a challenging future, but with much to celebrate
On Friday, 20 June, the Constitutional Court celebrated the 30th anniversary of its first hearing, S v Makwanyane, a case dealing with the constitutionality of the death penalty. The imposition of the death penalty was halted temporarily at the end of 1989 after a decade in which South Africa had annually executed more than 100 convicted prisoners. The decision of the newly established court to hear this as its first case was an important symbol that the court was intent on adjudicating on key apartheid policy as part of its mandate to transform the existing legal system. And what a court assembled to hear this case. Four of the 11 judges were appointed from the existing judiciary, the president of the court was appointed by President Nelson Mandela, and six members were appointed after interviews conducted by the newly created Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Among the 11 were great lawyers who had earned their reputations in the fight against apartheid laws — the president of the court, Arthur Chaskalson, judges Ismail Mohamed, John Didcott, Johann Kriegler, Laurie Ackermann and Pius Langa SC, and two women who would grace the court with the greatest of distinction, Yvonne Mokgoro and Kate O' Regan. Sitting as an acting judge in the absence of Judge Richard Goldstone was South Africa's greatest advocate, Sydney Kentridge QC. From that first judgment, the court set out to develop a viable constitutional jurisprudence that would contribute significantly to the transformation of South Africa from its racist, sexist, authoritarian past to a nonracial, non-sexist democracy. Judgments that protected the rights of same-sex couples, protected occupiers of property from arbitrary eviction, gave content to the social and economic rights in the Constitution and held the executive accountable to its constitutional duties represented the profound contribution of that first court to the building of South Africa's constitutional democracy. When judges of the first court retired, it was fortunate to have appointed a further set of distinguished jurists: Zak Yacoob, Dikgang Moseneke, Sandile Ngcobo, Edwin Cameron, Johan Froneman and Sisi Khampepe. It was only when Jacob Zuma became President that significant change took place that stultified the continued growth of the court. Instead of appointing the obvious leader of the court, Dikgang Moseneke, to be Chief Justice, Zuma chose the little-known Mogoeng Mogoeng to hold the highest office. Nkandla case By now, the pattern of the court's jurisprudence was more difficult to divine. Positives did continue. It most certainly sought to respond to Zuma's attempt to weaken the reaction to corruption by way of a majority judgment in the Glenister case. It held against Zuma when he sought to challenge the findings of the Public Protector in the Nkandla case, and in the case of Daniels v Scribante it endorsed an approach to property protection for the vulnerable that responded eloquently to the oppression of the past. But clear divisions were now evident in the court. In another in the sequence of Zuma cases, this one dealing with whether Parliament had put in place mechanisms to hold Zuma accountable for failing to implement the Public Protector's remedial action, Chief Justice Mogoeng described the majority judgment that held Parliament accountable as a textbook case of judicial overreach. Significant division was evident in the area of administrative law. Socioeconomic rights jurisprudence never recovered from the conservative finding of the court in the Mazibuko case dealing with the right of access to sufficient water. Private law, particularly the law of contract, remained in the substantive grip of the common law, which had been crafted in the pre-democratic era. And the court, with an extended jurisdiction to hear non-constitutional cases, struggled to deal coherently with tax, competition and other commercial disputes. The court was not helped by the appointment process. There can be little doubt that the JSC during the leadership of Mogoeng did not discharge its constitutional mandate as was required by the Constitution. Applicants were subjected to aggressive and offensive questioning, while judges who would have added greatly to the overall knowledge and expertise of the court were not recommended for no justifiable reason. The upshot was that talented, deserving potential members of the court refused to be subjected to this pattern of unfair treatment, and thus did not apply for appointment, much to the overall cost of the court. Today the court is under new management, being the leadership of Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, and her first 10 months have seen a significant positive change, building on the positives of her predecessor, Raymond Zondo. Over the next 18 months there will be a number of vacancies on the court which can provide an opportunity for it to attract new talent and thus ensure it remains central to the construction of a viable constitutional democracy. Early in its history, the court found against the ANC government led by Mandela. He reacted by stating that he respected the adverse outcome, emphasising the importance of the rule of law. In the 2024 elections, by contrast, some 27% of those who voted supported parties that wish to either abolish the Constitution or repeal significant parts thereof. The Constitutional Court faces a challenging future. And while some of the initial gloss has worn off from the record of the first court, there remains much to celebrate concerning the 30 years of the court's existence. A solid foundation has been built to continue to promote constitutional democracy and ward off the threat of the 27% parties. DM
IOL News
05-06-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Meyiwa trial judge offside
It is deeply concerning that Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng, presiding over the high-profile Senzo Meyiwa murder trial, made a racially charged remark broadcast live, says the writer. In a country still navigating the painful legacy of racial division, those entrusted with upholding the Constitution must be held to the highest standards of impartiality, professionalism, and respect. It is deeply concerning that Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng, presiding over the high-profile Senzo Meyiwa murder trial, made a racially charged remark broadcast live. The frustrated judge said 'This is what happens in a South Africa run by Blacks. A White advocate will never have the gall to ask me that,' in response to a formal request by Advocate Charles Mnisi, who had advised the court that he would be unavailable on Monday due to participation in Sunday's Comrades Marathon. While the judge's frustration over delays in this long-running and emotionally charged trial may be understandable, resorting to racially divisive language is entirely unacceptable. It undermines the integrity of the judiciary and risks inflaming already fragile race relations in South Africa. Decorum in court is not just about the behaviour of lawyers and attendees, it begins with the conduct of the bench. Judges must embody the fairness and dignity they expect from others. These comments fall far short of that standard. The trial of those accused of murdering Orlando Pirates and Bafana Bafana captain Senzo Meyiwa, a national tragedy, must be conducted with the utmost seriousness and integrity. We call on the Judicial Service Commission to urgently review these remarks and reaffirm the principle that justice must be administered without fear, favour, or prejudice. Brett Herron, GOOD Secretary-General
