The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has now announced the names of the most recent successful candidates for appointment to various High Courts and the Labour Court. There has been some criticism of these appointments, most notably because of the non-appointment of Adv Jeremy Gauntlett and – to a lesser extent – Adv Glen Goosen and the promotion of Judge Willem van der Merwe to Deputy Judge President of the Gauteng High Court.
I do not agree with all the criticism leveled at the JSC, although I suspect some good candidates might not have been appointed. Nevertheless, at this point it might be helpful to take stock and to evaluate the performance of the JSC.
The first striking feature of the appointments is that several white men were appointed to the various High Courts. This underscores the fact that it is a myth that “white men need not apply” for positions on the bench. All three judges appointed to the Labour Court are white men and two of the five appointments to the Gauteng High Court are also white men. Judge Willem van der Merwe was promoted to Deputy Judge President despite the fact that he is a white man.
Although members of the JSC asked pertinent questions about the need for the racial and gender transformation of the bench (questions that are perfectly relevant), the majority of members clearly do not believe that race and gender are the only criteria to be used when deciding on appointments. This view is correct and perfectly in line with the Constitution.
Second, I might be wrong, but I see a trend emerging regarding the appointment of white lawyers to the bench. The majority of members on the JSC seem reluctant to give the nod to progressive white lawyers. Although Judge Dennis Davis was said to have had by far the best interview before the JSC when it had to consider appointments to the Constitutional Court, he was not appointed. Davis was an energetic and tireless progressive (as opposed to liberal) campaigner against apartheid and has handed down many progressive judgments as a member of the Cape High Court.
Similarly Adv Glen Goosen, who was an anti-apartheid activist and worked for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and has a well-earned reputation as a progressive lawyer, was overlooked by the JSC in the most recent round of appointments. Previously the JSC had also declined to appoint Adv Jeff Budlender, one of the most brilliant progressive lawyers in South Africa. Budlender had been involved in several social and economic rights cases and was active in progressive anti-apartheid politics during the struggle against apartheid.
If I am correct, it would suggest that the JSC is more comfortable with the appointment of pro-establishment white lawyers who might not have been active in anti-apartheid struggles than with the appointment of more critical lawyers. Could this be because progressive white lawyers are perceived to be too critical and too prepared to intervene on behalf of the vulnerable, the poor and the voiceless? Are candidates being appointed who are perceived to be traditionally conservative about gender issues and issues of social justice because they would be less likely to hand down progressive judgments that would embarrass the government?
Third, it is unfair to criticize the appointment of Judge Willem van der Merwe as Deputy Judge President of the Gauteng High Court on the basis that he acquitted President Jacob Zuma on the charge of rape. It is unfair to Judge van der Merwe, who clearly based his decision on the facts presented to the court and on the law. The argument that he was “rewarded” for acquitting Zuma does no one any favors and is wrong.
Hopefully no one is implying that Van der Merwe acquitted Zuma to further his own career. Most observers agree that Judge Van der Merwe came to the correct decision when he acquitted Zuma and he should surely not be penalized merely because in applying the law without fear favor or prejudice he happened to have acquitted the President on the charge of rape.
Having said that, the appointment of Judge van der Merwe could be criticized on different grounds. Feminists and gender activists criticized Van der Merwe for allowing the defense in the Zuma case to question the complainant on her sexual history. The judgment deals with these arguments and makes a plausible case for the decision. Nevertheless, given the fact that the transformation of the judiciary also requires the JSC to appoint non-racist, non-sexist and non-homophobic judges, it would have been better if the members of the JSC had quizzed Van der Merwe vigorously about his commitment to gender equality.
I have no idea whether Van der Merwe is a closet feminist or whether he harbors stereotypical views of women and express no opinion about it. However it surely is the role of the JSC to try and find out. In the same way that it is allowed to ask questions of candidates about their commitment to racial equality, the JSC is allowed to quiz judges on their social attitudes towards women.
Lastly, in discussing the appointment of judges it is important to take a nuanced view and not to jump to conclusions. At the same time this does not mean the JSC should get a free pass and that we should not criticize it when it overlooks a particular individual who has the legal skills, the temperament and the social justice credentials to advance broader transformation goals.
I get the feeling your final word on the appointments is yet to be decided. Further, are you suggesting that the appointments represent a more supportive potential towards the conservative status quo, while the needs of the disadvantaged will be diminished in favour of government indifference? Will they advance trust in the judiciary?
Knowing their history as I imagine you do, what can we expect from their decisions, a more successful, just and prosperous South Africa, a strengthening of the law, of the Constitution, or more of the same, more decline? Will it be fear or courage which sustains them and determines their decisions? Is their commitment to Lady Justice a true oath, or a personal advantage?
Save to say that their are serious question marks hanging over the integrity of our judiciary (Hlophe et al) time will most certainly tell whether our esteeemed Prof is right or wrong.
Mmm…hopefully this new batch can at the very least pronounce ‘prima facie’ properly as ‘prima fashee’ and not ‘prima fuky’. Damn!
Exactly what are you inferring Andre? There is great debate even amongst Latin scholars as to how the Romans themselves pronounced words. Both pronunciations are generally accepted as correct.
Peter John says:
April 23, 2010 at 8:52 am
“There is great debate even amongst Latin scholars as to how the Romans themselves pronounced words.”
It depends on who you believe.
Obelix famously said “These Romans are crazy”.
Dan Quayle is supposed to have said “I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn’t study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people.”
Prof de Vos, no one is criticising the appointment of Judge van der Merwe to the position of Deputy Judge President. People were only questioning, as oppossed to criticizing, whether this is a reward by “JZ”. No single person questioned Judge van der Merwe’s credibility or his excellent track at the South Gauteng High Court. So Prof, if you feel aggrieved by the appointment of what you term “non-progressive judges” that is your problem to deal with and accept the decison of our lovely JSC. Like JSC, I have had the opportunity of reading long judgement of the so-called progressive Judge Dennis Davis who is currently meddling in the drafting of Companies Act in that useless Department of Trade and Industry, his judgements though reported are not-extraordinary. No new precedent is set there. Yes, they are complicated and makes reading irritating. Separation of powers require that Judge Dennis Davis stay away from legislative function of drafting legislation. On Jeff Budlender, I am not sure whether there is much difference between this guy and your esteemed Adv Gauntlett. They might be popular within your circles but we all know that your favourite non-progressive advocates do not even come close to Adv. Wim Trengove, just to mention one, which in your view would be classified as non-progressive. In all, I think the JSC should be commended for recognising white male Afrikaners and further recommending a female to the position of Judge President. I just hope that in the next rounds of interview when there is a vacancy for Judge President, they will reserve such vacancy for black women, who is not a lesbian by the way, but observing African custom.
Zebulon says:
April 23, 2010 at 9:19 am
“black women, who is not a lesbian by the way, but observing African custom”.
It’s very important that the distinction is made between “black women” and “lesbian black women”.
As is the distinction between “black women” who do and those who don’t observe “African custom”.
I think most informed people will agree that this system of appointing judges on reccomendations by the JSC, flawed as it may be, are much better than the system we used to have.
Maggs Naidu says:
April 23, 2010 at 9:27 am
I think perhaps the importance of a distinction between “black women” who do and those who don’t observe “African custom” lies in the demographics of the population, and “black women” who do and those who don’t observe “African custom” must be appointed proportionally to reflect the demographics of the Black female population.
Chris says:
April 23, 2010 at 9:55 am
Hopefully Zebulon will unpack that for us.
Zebulon, the nproblem is that Van der Merwe talks and rules like a patriarch. No wonder you like him and no wonder you want to have a black woman (who is not a lesbian and who observe African custom) appointed. I assume you mean you want people on the bench who will be deeply conservative and will endorse patriarchy at all cost and will obey the dictates of the men. That is the kind of anti-transformation view that I abhor.
By the way, if you think Budlender and gauntlett are the same you are spectacularly uninformed. The one is a liberal and the other was a friend of Steve Biko….
Zebulon is right.
Davis J’s decisions are difficult to follow. He never seems to get to the point.
He should just say “Guilty” or “Not Guilty.”
(All the luck of the draw anyway.)
Pierre, according to the BBC, Donald Woods, on arriving in exile in London in 1978, described himself as a “liberal.”
That is why your sentence “The one is a liberal and the other was a friend of Steve Biko…” is difficult to make sense of.
@Prof, thanks for enlightening me on the difference between Budlender and Gauntlet silks, I did acknowledge that I am not sure whether there is a difference between them. Point of correction accepted. I must add that my view of what constitutes transformation is similarly to the outcome of the JSC as seen in the appointments. Your view of constitutional transformation is what is essentially being rejected daily by the JSC. Prof, I have seen that another academic at Wits with a professor title also differ with you on the interpretation on the Constitution by JSC’s ruling on the Honourable Judge President Hlope. I just hope the JSC appeals that judgement which requires Madam Helen Zille to be included in the considertaion of the matters affecting the High Court in the Western Cape. I will await developmets in this regard.
@Maggs and Chris
Not all black people in South Africa adheres to African custom. However, I do agree with your statements that we can find a balance when appointing blacks, in particular women, to the bench by questioning their origin and way of life to see if they are still rooted within the African values. Take for instance, one of my former colleague who is of Tsonga/Shangaan origin but cannot speak any black language including Tsonga or Shangaan. When she talks of home, she refer to Britain where her parents are employed. She might know everything in the legal discourse and impressive track record which qualifies her for appointment in the judiciary, but the truth of the matter is she represents not even a single African custom. Engaging her on African values will be a waste of time, because she will be relying on what she had read instead of what she has practiced and need to be protected.
@Osborne
Kudos to that! I think Prof was a bit tired to explain. Maybe I should also declare myself liberal though I have no idea what is its full meaning, especially in this forum.
@ Zebulon
Yes, I have also been puzzled by PdV’s use of the word “liberal.” I suspect that, for the most part, he often uses it as term for people he does not much like, without paying too much attention to the actual meaning of the word. (George Bush used the term in the same, non-descriptive manner to denote his political opponents.)
I can understand the term when used by socialists or communists, to those who oppose state ownership of the means of production etc. It is in this sense, I think, that white Communist like Joe Slovo of the SACP would distinguish themselves from Alan Paton of the Liberal Party.
I know that Ronald Suresh Roberts uses Liberal to mean any white person who is not absolutley overtly racist. Not sure that helps.
Pierre, have you written any notes on the refusal by the acting Judge President to endorse the two black acting Judges nominated by the BLA? As I understand it they have been employed in an Acting capacity for three years! I am aware of black Magistrate complaints that they are constantly employed on renewed temporary contracts, so giving the veneer of blackness but with none of the benefits or job security enjoyed by their white counterparts.
In the absense of clear reasons why the black Acting Judges were passed over by Traverso, it could be concluded that a similar tactic is being employed to limit the advancement of black Judges on the bench.
Zebulon says:
April 23, 2010 at 11:22 am
“She might know everything in the legal discourse and impressive track record which qualifies her for appointment in the judiciary, but the truth of the matter is she represents not even a single African custom”
Thanks for the clarity – the entire legal framework ought to be revisited.
Judges ought to have direct expertise in particular disciplines before they should be allowed to consider those – that would ensure that they rely on experience rather than reading.
It will be difficult, but in time it can be achieved – medical doctors, physicists, engineers, ministers of religion, sportspersons … should be convinced to become judges. My all time favourite will be airline pilots with more than 15 years flying of experience.
Some areas of expertise should be barred though – criminals, prostitutes, drug dealers may be problematic.
Taxi drivers will be ok though.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
April 23, 2010 at 11:08 am
“Davis J’s decisions are difficult to follow. He never seems to get to the point.”
Racists do that.
p.s. he too sold out by supporting Goldstone – treacherous, traitor.
@Zebulon: “I just hope … they will reserve such vacancy for black women, who is not a lesbian by the way, but observing African custom.”
Oh, so it’s OK – in your view – for a male judge to be gay, but not a female one? Certainly not a *black* female? Do you know how appallingly patriarchal you sound? As for African custom, why do you keep harping on that? Do you perhaps mean examples such as black parents marrying off their underage daughter to some old man against her wishes? Female ‘circumcision’ perhaps? How about ‘virginity testing’? Witch burning? Note that the female is always the victim in these instances. And you want female judges – black ones in particular – to be imbued with African custom? Pah!
@Clara
You are shoving words into my mouth. You must never assume unless you are certain on what I mean. Clarity seeking questions are always welcomed and answered. I never say it is okay for Judge Cameron to be a judge – By the way Cameron is a self confessed gay, and one of the finest jurist you can find in South Africa. Now you must be confused by my statement and I will clarify. In simple terms the institution of lesbianisms has not yet been fully understood to the extent that we can ask the black society to accept it as part of their developed culture. It is not that blacks are against it, but the concept has not been explained to them so that they could appreciate it. For futher clarity asks Malema in which I quote him ” You are either born male or female – the African vocabulary does not make mention of … (this include lesbianism).” Issues of black parents marrying off their underage daughter only happens in the remote rural areas of Eastern Cape. So the latter cannot be termed black custom. Female circumcission is not practiced by all balck African tribes – to my knowledge it is only practiced in Ghana and other African countries but not South Africa. However, male circumcission is part of our (black) culture in South Africa. Ask the medical profession on the davantages of male circumcission, you’ll be impressed if not blown away. Virginity testing – only that idiot in KZN still believes in this nonsense. At least he does not proclaim it to be part of our culture and it has not been recognised as that. Witch burning – Outlawed long time ago and replaced with “neck-lacing” i.e. practice of putting a burning tyre on the neck of a sell-out”. You see, only sell-outs are burnt not witches. Shocking but true- witchcraft is an African science practiced during night in dark areas. It is a taboo to talk about it or engage you on witchcraft. Some believe in it, some don’t, the rest are confused regarding its existence or non-existence thereof. Your last sentence still shoving words into my mouth. So judge for yourself whether I am patriarchal or feminist. (Sorry, I have no time for editing – enjoy your weekend)
Zebulon says:
April 23, 2010 at 16:20 pm
“the institution of lesbianisms”
Huh??????????
@ Clara.
This one’s for you.
“Ask the medical profession on the davantages of male circumcission, you’ll be impressed if not blown away.”
What is really at stake here? Is it not the survival of South African Democracy, and the broader implications for the rest of Africa and indeed the global community, the aspirations of those many millions who thirst for human rights even if not understanding the term or believing it possible, and for all of us who must have honest government? We know the pain of dishonest government, not only here but world wide, dishonest government that thinks only of its own advantages and enrichment, and to hell with anyone else regardless of the price. I say this is treason.
Interesting article on M&G today at http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-04-23-chvezs-lessons-in-impunity, also another one at Money Web: http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page292523?oid=483108&sn=2009+Detail&pid=287226
The subject is Chavez’s kleptocracy, internationally rated at a very low 162 out of 180 countries with respect to corrupt and disrespectful manipulative government, and our Julius is there for pointers, the self serving nincompoop that he is. Faust would have loved our drama and undoubtedly produced another masterpiece.
The entire civilized world is watching, just as they have and are watching Mad Bob. How foolish can a country be to oppose the West, rather than take advantage of good relations. All know that birds of a feather fly together and what it means that South Africa, Zimbabwe (Julius and Bob) are hobnobbing with those thuggish horrors that much of the educated and cultured world consider despicable.
Yes indeed, the struggle continues, and its not in any way an ANC’s struggle. It is ours, for we who must have decent, compassionate and honest government offering opportunity to all the people, something the ANC doesn’t even touch on but in their untruthful electioneering and spin spiced with insincere food parcels, T-shirts and beer on the timely, although rare occasions.
I think one of the greatest examples of this ‘opportunity for the people’ that I speak of, is how the telecommunications industry developed in the West (and for that matter electrical power) particularly in the USA and Canada. The whole point of those exercises was to give their citizens inexpensive and effective electricity power and telecommunications, paid for by the state with taxpayers money, and not singularly to make a profit, rather to provide an advancing service. Avarice wasn’t so prevalent then in Government. The rest is history where even today, telecommunications, for example, in North America in all its forms is the least expensive in the world and the growth it produced played a major role in the good life known by the vast majority there today.
A Democratic government is traditionally designed to serve the people, to protect its society and provide the opportunities which stimulate both the people and the country that they may advance and progress to the benefit of all, the officials responsible, to offer selfless and long hours of service where a representative’s single goal is to improve the lives of those they represent, and the country they love. Constituency Representation promotes such a value.
I’ve known many men and women like this. It is possible.
Finally, its despairing to see so many posting individuals throwing about hate and anger spiced with mind boggling ignorance and racist poop; no comprehensive thought process at play there. Most noticeable is the complaint from Julius’s sycophants that utilizing the law and the courts to set rights ‘right’, is improper, as though those of us who wish this country to prosper have any other avenue, or that we should feel guilt in pursuing lawful relief. I can imagine how so called labelled coconuts suffer, the cruel attempt by aggressive incompetents to make an accused believe they are both wrong and inferior, that they are betraying themselves and their people, their culture, their race; these are abusers attacking those who think more clearly, and they do so with manipulative self serving nonsense and clear objectives. And isn’t it always the intellectuals, the thinkers who are first to be disappeared, disempowered in any growing fascist state. And if these abusers can’t humiliate their victims to the point of surrender, they eventually destroy, the way of all thugs.
We all know it could be different. Just imagine if Julius had chosen the route of peace, love, reconciliation and justice for all, embracing all the cultures in brotherhood, rather than his hate, disgraceful greed and manipulative anger.
Well that’s my say for this Friday. And as the Fass would say. Thanks.
@Zebulon: “For futher clarity asks Malema …”
Sure, why don’t I do that
Your comment to me is full of inaccuracies, which I won’t go into here as I’m busy getting into weekend mode. Just one thing, though: while male circumcision may help protect men from the AIDS virus, research has shown that it does not protect the wives and female partners of infected men. (I’m not blown away.)
@Maggs: I do so enjoy your brand of humour. No, really.
the reason clara hate julius is because you are probabaly the same,you see only negative on africans and their calture, but i am glad that most whites do not think like you or practice that racial stereotype, anyway you do not seem to be able to write anything without mentioning julius, may you pls try to stick to the topic.
kenneth says:
April 24, 2010 at 8:57 am
“the reason clara hate julius is because you are probabaly the same,you see only negative on africans and their calture”
Hey Kenneth – does Julius “see only negative on africans and their calture”???
Maggs, FYI, Cmd Malema sees africans and their culture in all their diversity, richness and contradictions. He sees both the “good” and the “bad.” And he is aware that the “bad” was largely imposed by COLONIALISM and APARTHEID.
That is why he has devoted his life to the struggle against white tendencies.
Thanks very much.
But isn’t that list of names set out only the JSC recommendations from which the Prez can choose to formally appoint?
Anyway, I saw [ex] judge Willem Heath sat in on the hearings of the JSC. He’s apparently now some sort of legal advisor to the Prez after his origional advisors seriously dropped him and left him red faced several times last year. To the delight of the DA and Cope.
So the Prez’s “ears” were there when the dwarves held the interviews. It will still be interesting to see who the Prez and Heath select.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
April 24, 2010 at 11:55 am
In other words, Kenneth is spreading misinformation about Juju?
Eish!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0B_nz539wo
Mike, your writing is industrial-strength drivel; you seem to be a self-taught expert, someone who learnt about humankind from a chappie wrapper! Go play soccer outside? Watch a movie, kiss a girl, something, anything.
Andre,I am not at all ashamed to be an autodidact.I taught my self to read,and yes, your sneers notwitstanding, I learned a lot from sweet wrappers. You should be delighted that the humble interventions of people like Maggs and myself save this blog from becoming a self-referential cluster of rarified intellectuals-you, Brett and especially John Roberts.
-
wasnt judge van der merwe rumoured, at one stage to have been affiliated with the AWB? just checking if the JSC put paid to that rumour.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
April 24, 2010 at 23:50 pm
Hey Dworky,
Stop being so sensitive to the three wise men, all of whom have contributed greatly to our collective wisdom.
We recently learned from Andre to pronounce ‘prima facie’ properly as ‘prima fashee’ and not ‘prima fuky’ – I wondered what was meant by the classical Latin pronunciation of ‘c’ as [k’] or [k].
And now we all know that the Latin ‘c’ is pronounced ‘she’.
@everybody who always wanted to know:
In Latin, the C is always pronounced with a K sound. Many people nowadays pronounce ancient Latin like modern Italian, and this is also the pronunciation you would hear at a Latin Mass in a Roman Catholic church. But the Latin scholars at universities insist that the C should always be pronounced like a K.
Thus, my guess is that ‘prima facie’ would be pronounced ‘preema fah-kee-ay’.
Clara says:
April 25, 2010 at 16:07 pm
I agree. According to William Sidney Allen in his book Vox Latina: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Latin the c always sounds like the c in cap.
@ Clara & Chris,
Thanks, I always struggled with should it be “c “or “k”. However, would that apply to “exceptio” too – to be pronounced “exkeptio”?
Gerald says:
April 25, 2010 at 21:15 pm
My Latin professor taught us to pronounce “exceptio” as “exkeptio”.
In the spoken Latin – so I was taught – “c” is pronounced “k” when it follows a vowel, but “s” when it follows a consonant. Furthermore, whan “c” is found in the begining of a word, it is pronounced “K”, like “Kaesar” (the “ae” being an “ai”, not an “e”, and the “a” being an “ah”‘ not an “eh” or Afrikaans ‘n). Thus Ceasar is pronounced “Kaisahr”, not “Sezehr” as it is commonlyt done in Shakespearean plays. However, “v” is pronounced “u” when found in the middle of the word, like “Jvlivs” (no, not Malema!, Caesar!) – and the “J” is not a “jhe”, but a “y”, like in Yull Bryner.
As you quite rightly observed Maggs, Obelix used to say “These Romans are Crazy!” I’d say, however, that “These Brits are crazy!” E.g., how can you speak about a “dressed” chicken or fish, when you actually mean that the chiken’s feathers and fish’s scales (and intestines) have nbeen removed?
The masses have neither the time of the energy for debates about pronouciation in a dead language that displays whitish tendencies. The point is that the liberal media has tried and convicted Cmd Malema of tender irregularities in the absence even of prima-fuky evidence.
Mikhail – I think there was prima fucking (oops, watch the tongue!) evidence of such irregularities.
Henri, the Prez can only choose from a list when appointments are made to the Constitutional Court. Otherwise the JSC nominates all other judges (apart from Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and President and Deputy President of the SCA) and the President MUST appoint those nominated.
Pierre De Vos says:
April 26, 2010 at 10:59 am
“the JSC nominates all other judges (apart from Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and President and Deputy President of the SCA) and the President MUST appoint those nominated.”
The constitution says “174 (6) The President must appoint the judges of all other courts on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission.”
Does “advice” necessarily imply nomination?
Pierre, it has been said that President Mbeki declined to appoint Cameron J to the CC after his name had been sent to him by the JSC. Is that true?
@ Anonymouse, Andre etc
Whether you pronounce Latin in the English fashion or try to replicate the way in which an ancient Roman would have pronounced it (approximately) is a matter of personal taste. Contrary to popular opinion we have a pretty good idea of what it sounded like (about 80%) although subtleties like intonation are obviously lost forever. W. Sidney Allan’s Vox Latina is probably one of the best summaries of the subject – he also goes into some depth on the basis for the reconstruction of individual sounds. (Obviously there is also the issue of when a specific instance of Latin was spoken – there were some distinct differences between how Cicero or Tertullian would have pronounced a word.)
The Roman pronunciation of prima facie (at the time of Cicero) would have been: ‘pree-mah ‘fah-kee-eh (in “prima” both vowels should be long, i by nature and the a due to the fact that this is in the ablative case, stress on penultimate syllable; “facie” – penult and antepenult short by nature, ultima long due to ablative case, stress on antepenult).
* In Latin of the classical period, c was *always* pronounced ‘k’ regardless of the following vowel. Also, the ‘ie’ of facie are two vowels, not a diphtong!!!
@ Anonymouse, Andre LV etc
Thank you.
Latin of the classical period must be the way to go then.
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
@ Clara:
“Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur ”
“Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus Malema!”
Michael – LOL … infinitus est numerus stultorum!
@ Michael
Malema stercus accidit – sunt pueri pueri, puerilia tractant.
I hope you all realise that I had to use my Latin dictionary to read your posts!
Hi. Is there a list of which judges were appointed. I have been trying to find a list but haven’t been able to find one. Please could you post a link or let me know ?
Sorry to burst into this little elitist chitter-chat, but I’m still waiting to hear from Pierre on the failure of the acting Judge President to speak up for the two black acting Judges that the BLA nominated.
As I hear it, the real JP is rather upset by this passing over of the African candidates, so I doubt if they lack the requisite ability and the like. Given that Traverso was specifically mentioned in his report on racism some years back wherein she was accused of “undermining” him, her refusal to support the black nominees is worthy of some investigation and discussion.
So why no discussion? Surely it is far more important that we analyse the reasons why black Judges are being held back in temporary posts than ponder as to why Dauntless was passed over.
Mpho is right.
But there is no doubt why the African judges were passed over.
One word: RACISM!
And please don’t use the excuse of “experience,” or tell me that years of actually practicing as an Advocate is important training. All you need ito be a judge is basic common sense, an intuitive sense of justice, and a level of melanin sufficient to make litigants believe you can identify with them!
What I don’t understand is if during the three years the nominees had been acting, why were their weaknesses not highlighted and some additional assistance garnered from the Justice College, for example? Having said that, none of us know what Traverso said behind the JSC closed doors, but we do know that the exclusion was down to her because JSC Spokesperson, Ntsebeza, said that the JSC had to be “guided” by the JP for the Court. Why is the suppression of the black nominees by a white woman formerly accused by her boss of racism not being spoken out about openly?
Mpho is right.
If one studies really, really hard, a few classes at Justice College can easily make up for years and years of actually practicing law!
Also, while I remain convinced that Hlophe JP is the world’s greatest living jurist, I wonder still why he appointed as acting judges advocates whom he had so recently branded as “racist.” (I am sure he had a good reason. I just can’t think of it.)
Mpho, how dare you burst into this elite little chitter-chatter?
hahahaha
I was actually waiting for Mzo to come and police this non-English discussion. Disappointed by his absense I felt I had to take the lead!
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
May 1, 2010 at 14:45 pm
It takes real skill and experience to achieve this :
“Despite the recession, South African CEOs were still able to double their normal annual earnings last year with ‘performance bonuses’ – while the JSE lost 42% in value”.
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1137001
Mpho, I am by no means a great fan of the Deputy Judge President and would happily criticize her if warranted. However, I have no knowledge of the event or the two candidates who did not make the shortlist. Even so, I might have questioned the decision not to shortlist these candidates as it smells fishy. But the decision to shortlist or not was not taken by Traverso but by the JSC, so my obvious suspicion is somewhat allayed by this. Do you perhaps have more information on this? Why did the JSC members endorse Traverso’s view? Can it be justified or not?
I DON’T BELIEVE IN WHITE (RACISTS) JUDGES. I WISH THESE THINGS COULD BE REMOVED FROM OUR BENCH. THEY HAVE NO MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTION OTHER THAN PERPETRATING THEIR RACIST MOTIVES
No Pierre, the Spokesperson of the JSC said that they had to be guided by the Judge President of the Court (Traverso as Hlophe was still not back at work) and she felt they were “not yet ready”. After 3 years of acting! One of them was the head Regional Magistrate before he took up his acting post. Hlophe, the real JP, wanted them to be put forward. I hear there is a great deal of tension due to her actions.
It is a classic MO of racist managers, to constantly delay the promotion for the black candidates, yet give the white ones the benefit of the doubt and support to move up.
Why don’t you check the newspapers and you’ll see that all the information is there. I find it a far more worthwhile topic than a debate that the insuferable Gauntless failed to get a look in.
Mpho says:
May 3, 2010 at 20:04 pm
Do you know how they performed while they were acting? Do you have any of their judgement delivered while they were acting, demonstrating their ability to be judges? Do you know that there is no such position as a head regional magistrate? Do you know that regional magistrates do only criminal cases, while they bulk of a judge’s work is civil work? Do you know that to have acted on the bench for three years means nothing?
Mpho, you are a classical of of a person giving an opinion on something he knows absolutely nothing about.
@ Pierre
“Why did the JSC members endorse Traverso’s view?”
Pierre, you know there is only one answer to this question: RACISM!
Yes, the JSC is functionally racist. Tragically, the”black” members were swayed by the RACIST arguments of those who assume that civil litigation experience is necessary for a High Court Judge.
Mpho is right. Whites in all sectors clamour that blacks need “training” or “mentoring.” How arrogant! Who says the white way of doing things is superior? (Typical of white bigots to set the norm with reference to white standards – then demand that blacks measure up.)
Please read the LAT report on http://www.workersadvicecentre.webs.com to see what Jeremy Gauntlett has been up to. If you look at all his Namibian cases you would further understand his judicial sense. He was one of the founding fathers of the Legal Assistance Trust of Namibia. The Trust was used as an organised criminal outfit to undermine the Namibian economy and to abuse international donor monies! Gauntlett and his fellow trustees ran a criminal scam for years…If you follow all the latest large Namibian cases in the Superior Courts, you will notice that Gauntlett is the Council(advocate) and Dave Smuts(his co-trustee of the LAT) as the Judge. You will see Tjombe also a co-trustee(and known sidekick of Smuts) as lawyer and Smuts as the Judge…Tjombe and Gauntlett have yet to be unsuccessful before their colleague, now a judge! Gauntlett goes as far as to write long papers on the independence of the judiciary in RSA, but in the meantime he is destroying the independence of the Namibian judiciary.
The JSC South Africa have been informed of this!Hopeully they would seriously reconsider appointing Gauntlett as a judge in future.
Read the LAT report and judge for yourself….