Why has President Jacob Zuma decided to appoint Justice Sandile Ngcobo as Chief Justice? What does it say about the ANC and the President’s view on the independence of the judiciary and its role in our constitutional democracy? Justice Ngcobo will serve only 18 months as Chief Justice before President Zuma will again have the opportunity to appoint a Chief Justice – this time perhaps from the four new appointments to be made later this year.
There will be doomsayers who will pull out their hair (if they have any left), gnash their teeth and shout to the heavens because, so they will claim, the ANC is busy fundamentally to undermine the independence of the judiciary and the appointment of Justice Ngcobo is just a stop-gap measure to pave the way for the appointment of John Hlophe as Chief Justice in two years time when Ngcobo must retire.
It seems to me such an analysis will be too simplistic. In my opinion the move should be interpreted as part of a long-term strategy by the ANC to speed up the implementation of what it sees as the “transformation” of the judiciary. President Zuma has demonstrated over the past few months that he does not want to rock the boat and likes to make appointments that will not be too controversial.
As I have said before, Justice Ngcobo perfectly fits this bill as he will be the longest serving Justice on the Constitutional Court when he takes office as Chief Justice, is highly respected among other judges and lawyers and does not have the kind of baggage associated with some other judicial disasters.
At the same time, Ngcobo will retire in 2011 and the President will then be able to appoint another Chief Justice perceived to be more pliant and more executive minded. Like the US President who would want to appoint a Supreme Court justice whose philosophy closely resembles his own without upsetting public opinion too much, Zuma has therefore decided to appoint a safe Chief Justice and this will allow him to appoint another Chief Justice in 2011 when his power may be more deeply entrenched and he will thus be less fettered by concerns about rocking the boat.
This is not a short term game, but part of a long term strategy to “transform” the judiciary in line with the ANC January 8 statement of 2005 which said:
However, we are also confronted by the similarly important challenge to transform the collective mindset of the judiciary to bring it into consonance with the vision and aspirations of the millions who engaged in struggle to liberate our country from white minority domination.
The reality can no longer be avoided that many within our judiciary do not see themselves as being part of these masses, accountable to them, and inspired by their hopes, dreams and value systems. If this persists for too long, it will inevitably result in popular antagonism towards the judiciary and our courts, with serious and negative consequences for our democratic system as a whole.
Of course, it is unclear whether this statement means the ANC sees a “transformed” judiciary as one staffed by judges who will defend the constitution and the rights of the masses of our people whose rights will in the future as in the past – often! – be infringed by the legislature the executive and other powerful institutions, or whether it wants a judiciary staffed with judges who will conflate the interests of the masses of the people with the interests of the ANC ruling elite and will not check the abuse of power by the governing party, its lackeys and the business elites.
But these are of course things one can legitimately argue about in a democracy. Meanwhile the appointment of Justice Ngcobo provides some support for the view that the ANC really wants an independent judiciary and not a judiciary who will be too scared to enforce the rights of ordinary citizens.
However, the real test will come when the President has to appoint four new judges on the Constitutional Court and when Ngcobo retires and he has to appoint a new Chief Justice. Only then will we have a better picture of what the long term strategy of Zuma and the ANC regarding our judiciary might be.
So, I feel a bit like Chairman Mao who when asked what he thought the impact of the French revolution was, famously replied: “It is too early too tell.”
Another good post Prof and indeed you correctly forsaw Ngcobo’s appointment, I also think it’s a good one.I think Judges should stay clear of politics, and should not even mention political parties on their birthday parties, so Moseneke=good riddance!
It was anyway a bad thing to appoint a Judge from the ranks of political activism!
Moseneke was at the dawn of the new constitutional dispensation a PAC deputy president. That was the time of “one farmer, one bullet”, and ” kill the Boer, kill the farmer” chants by the PAC – of which he was a leader.
So mercifully its not the dawning of the era of “one farmer, one bullet”constitutional jurisprudence – which under our facilitative constitution { actually a contradictio in terminis } is any time a possibility.
But lest we forget. It’s after all just another AA appointment. And post – Polokwane.
Now wait a minute now Pierre de Vos. When the then Deputy President Mbeki preferred Ngcobo instead of Cameron, after they had tied in the interview , you are (were) in the group of people who called Mbeki decision racist and incorrect. Many times, you refer back to that decision when you admonish Mbeki on AIDS, while you try to win sympathy for Cameron.
Could you please explain to the ‘constitutionally unclued up’ like myself, why this decision by Zuma is not a product of the very decision you have repeatedly criticized? If you cannot explain that, then please agree that your view on Mbeki is as narrow as a horse wearing blinkers.
Mdu – “Moseneke = good riddance” – Remember he remains DCJ until he retires or dies (or is impeached, which isn’t going to happen).
Khosi, I have never called Mbeki’s decision to appoint Ngcobo racists or incorrect. If you have proof to the contrary please provide such. I have mentioned the fact that Mbeki had refused to appoint Cameron after Cameron criticised Mbeki’s AIDS folly to highlight the absurd and dangerous views of your hero on HIV/AIDS, but certainly never questioned the appointment of Ngcobo who wrote a brilliant judgment on HIV discrimination in the Hoffmann case and also wrote a minority judgment in the Prince case supporting Prince’s claim that his freedom of religion was infringed by the law that failed to make an exception for Rastafarians to use dagga.
Pierre, stop bullshitting.
Please refer to the timeline of Ngcobo’s appointment to the ConCourt, Cameron AIDS activism, Mbeki’s appointment to the presidency and Mbeki so called ‘AIDS folly’.
Then reconstruct your response.
It seems to me that Zuma made a brilliant and politically astute choice when he selected Ngcobo as chief justice. Ngcobe’s credentials are unassailable and he is a brilliant jurist. Sure there will be criticism that he was the only jurist to dissent in the Zuma v. NPA case, but so what. He was independent minded and he did not believe that the NPA’s search was lawful or constitutional. Neither did I. It is a dangerous thing to allow the police to search the office of lawyers. In my mind, the other jurists were off the mark. However, reasonable minds differ.
THe legal system needs to be transformed. Right now it is counter to the constitution which mandates access to the judiciary. There is no access to justice for the average South Africa. Justice now is only made available to the rich who can afford the unnecessary expense of two legal practitioners. If litigants try to represent themselves, they are ignored and ridiculed by many of the judges. If they hire any advocate who is not part of the old boy network, they are largely ignored. Transformation is a necessity. If the apointment of Ngcobe is done in furtherance of transformation of the elite, arrogant and exclusive judiciary, then I say amen to Zuma and the ANC.
Transformation of the judiciary is a must. The average person has no trust in the judiciary as it now operates. And, right now — judicial independence is a joke. THe judicial system is controlled by a few banks, corporations and advocates.
I learnt with deep regret the appointment/nomination of Ngcobo as our next CJ. A careful reading of the Prince case lucidly exposes how radical a thinker the nominee is. Another focal point that gets easily not discerned is this folly obsession with race. When are we going to free our illusions on race and partisan minds for the sake of this country’s development and success?
Good appointment ,By the way i also this ” Zulfication of South Africa” from http://www.thetimes.co.za …..apparently the author was referring to this appointment of Ngcobo CJ The other respondent (whom i suppose he/she is belong to the Z tribe), he had this to say ” don`t worry there is a Xhosafication taken in COPE” …….eish there is nothing i hate about than this kind of mentality
If the former is the truth, the conclusion that P. Zuma has a vendetta against the previous administration is inevitably bafethu.But this a good appointment as i said in my last post, Ngcobo CJ seems to be a smart and intelligent man who may be easily influenced by outsiders. But i think we, as the public particularly those in the legal fraternity deserve full reasons for the appointment ……..remember accusations that were often leveled against TM as arrogant and not open to the public ….if you think objectively you will realize that there is fundamentally difference between these guys.
I try not to comment most of the time, unless the passion is there, then I do.
Personally speaking, I felt relief today, as this is one more of Zuma’s workable appointments… we need to appreciate those few positives we get., few and far between. We knew our favorite and ‘most worthy’, being politically incorrect, would not be appointed, finish and klaar, right?
The worrying thing, understandably, is will Chief Justice Ngcobo hand down decisions that in his heart he knows will allow him to continue in two years, be re-appointed, or will he be fearless and true to his soul, build the law for meaningful democracy, and stand for the people?
Only time will tell.
By now we all know what we have in our rulers. I don’t think we need to doubt our understandings or tortured by doubt.
Today, a meeting of the PARLIAMENTARY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE, to address THE IMPACT ON JOB CREATION, failed to take place because not enough ANC
MP’s attended to form a quorum. This was a meeting with the Construction stakeholders, and it was slated for discussion how to prepare for workers now building the World Cup, to continue in their jobs when the Cup has passed.
See: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=138834&sn=Detail
Unless the ANC is serious, we don’t have a prayer. At least for the next five years.
Follow up: Its inevitable, with Zuma putting the Zulunostra in place, a major split with the Xhosa will now escalate. Whew, what complications, and what possibilities.
Good appointment. Well, i must say i was hoping DCJ Moseneke will be appointed but it was not to be. Having said so, i am not at all fooled by the President when he informed the nation that the utterances of DCJ Moseneke during his 60th birthday were not at all considered by him. In fact not so long ago, he was quoted in http://www.thetimes.co.za as having said “of course when deciding who to appoint as CJ, the i will not be oblivious to the utterances of DCJ. It would then be strange if he changed his view between then and lunch time today unless of course something VERY drastic and which i am not aware of occurred between then and now.
Anyway all judges regardless of the courts in which they are administering justice should be doing so in the interest of our constitution, the country and its people not because of career hopes to become the Chief Justice some day. Well if one gets to be appointed then it should be a bonus especially a man of good standing like Justice Ngcobo.
At this stage i doubt the Zulu and Xhosa talk is warranted or has room in this debate as such one need not dwell on it. For starters JP Hlophe is Zulu but he did not get the position (having been “nominated” by a ridiculous lobby group that calls itself lawyers and academics).
All the best to justice Ngcobo. I also am hoping DCJ Moseneke will continue to administer justice in the manner required of him by the constitution, his oath of office, the country and the citizenry regardless. Indeed it should not be “about what ANC deligates in Polokwane think and or want”
All the best to Ngcobo (C)J. I trust he will do a sterling job. I also think that it is not desirable that Zuma appointed him IF the reasons have anything to do with the fact that he: (a) Has never spoken his true opinion but simply leaves it to being an excellent jurist on the bench – there may be better jurists… (b) He gave a dissenting judgement (Zuma v NPA) where it is quite clear the Court would have pressed for a unanimous decision and (c) He is Zulu.
There is a specific post which I cannot console myself with: C Vaughn // Aug 6, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I do not see how this appointment will, in any way, help transformation. What should be done is work on the lower courts. I do not believe that unifying the legal profession will provide any solution, just make the lines blurred to the public but the customs would still go on, unchanged. I also don’t see what is wrong with an “old boys network”, so long as it is not essential that you be part of such a network to get work. I find it interesting that you don’t also complain of the “Struggle Networks” at the same time. Right now they seem to pose a greater danger than old white men with flabby skin. The networks with political power, public appeal and money are extremely powerful – even when they are embarrassingly stupid.
Nkululeko, I tend to agree with your views as regards the preservation of a split bar.
Mouse by Moseneke=good riddance, I meant to express relief at him being overlooked as the next in line, I am really relieve as you are obviously distressed.
while i agree that Ngcobo is a very qualified man for the job, and i respect the decision of the President. I must disagree with @Henry that this is an AA appointment, the man is qualified beyond your imagination. Why would you say this is an AA appointment? i wonder, maybe it is you paternalism talking.
@Anonymouse, Zuma can still appoint a DCJ if he wants, a careful reading of the Constitution will tell you that if Zuma appoints a DCJ, he will be well within the Constitutional prescripts, hence Moseneke DCJ’s tenure as a Judge of the Concourt will remain intact and protected as envisaged by the Constitution. The DCJ position is a political appointment just like the CJ position.
I must however point out that i dont trust Judge Ngcobo to see transformation through because he has shown over the previous years that he is either racist against our South Africans or is simply not interested, and is an elite who could not be bothered about such mungane matters. A careful look at his appointment of Clerks leaves much too be desired, with Whites and foreign Clerks constantly appointed to his chamber. He cant tell me that RSA has no competent African Student or young Lawyers.
Lastly, maybe he will prove me wrong. I personally cant wait for the Chief Justice to retire. He has done nothing for young Lawyers or transformation. What happened to the racism report?
What a disgrace of a Chief Justice.
Sikhokho, very enlightning indeed, so let’s wait for two years so that the JSC clears Hlophe and we witness real transformation!
I agree Mdu.
Just one correction in my post I mean mundane matters not mungane matters.
Given the wide discretion which the president is afforded by the constitution (s174 (1), I think had got it right.
Of course it may be a political card being played by the ANC, as Prof points out, but in my view the appointment itself proves to be convincing, especially in the light of Ngcobo’s reputation in the legal fraternity.
Skhokho Radebe – ” @Anonymouse, Zuma can still appoint a DCJ if he wants, a careful reading of the Constitution will tell you that if Zuma appoints a DCJ, he will be well within the Constitutional prescripts, hence Moseneke DCJ’s tenure as a Judge of the Concourt will remain intact and protected as envisaged by the Constitution. The DCJ position is a political appointment just like the CJ position.”
I do not agree. S 174(3) deals with the “appointment” of the CJ, DCJ and PSCA and DPSCA, not their “removal”. It would take some pretty innovative reading of the Constitution to read that every time the President so desires, he/she may “remove” one of those incumbents from the office and “appoint” another in his/her place. A judge may only be “removed” from his/her “office” in terms of s 177, and that “office” in s 177 does not read the “office of judge”, the “office of SCA judge” or the “office of CC judge”, like you suggest will still be protected in the case of Moseneke DCJ if another DCJ is appointed in his stead. Neither does s 177 read that “a judge may only be removed as judge”. It reads that a “judge may only be removed from office”. So, obviously, the “office” from which a judge may be “removed” in terms of s 177 is something else than merely the “office of judge”, and would in all probability include “office of DCJ”. Your suggestion that if Moseneke is “removed” from office of DCJ, while another is “appointed” in his stead, would still mean that his tenure as a CC judge will remain unfettered cantherefore not be correct. S 174(3) also does not allow for two DCJ’s to serve simultaneously, unless one does not “interpret” the Constitution, but “divines” it. Moreover, s 176(3) provides that the salaries, allownaces and benefits of judges may not be reduced (the protection of tenure clause). The DCJ earns more than a normal CC judge, and enjoys more benefits. So, unless Moseneke DCJ is “removed” from his office in terms of s 177, or unless he retires in terms of s 176(1), resigns or dies, the regime will have to sit and wait out his term as DCJ, and Zuma may not “appoint” another DCJ in his place even if he “politically so wishes”. I think that much is pretty clear from a “careful reading” of the Constitution. Therefore, while I agree that the appointment of the CJ, DCJ, PSCA and DPSCA is in essence a political matter (where the President has a discretion or prerogative not to follow the advice of the CJ, the JSC or political parties), the political choices remain limited and suject to the Constitution, which is the supreme law. Another reading of the Constitution, I’m afraid, will not be conducive of judicial independence at all – and South Africa will be no better than Zimbabwe (and apartheid South Africa) where the judiciary is required to toe the line of the executive.
On the issue of Ncgobo being able to see “transformation” through, well, it depends on how you see “transformation”. There are many opposing views on this as we have recently seen under another blog-post below. And, to require of him to appoint only clerks from students or lawyers that are “African” (I take it by “African” you mean “black”), will not necessarily further the cause of transformation and may, depending on the circumstances even amount to “unfair discrimination on grounds of race ” that is unconstitutional. Are all the clerks in the CC white and/or foreign; or, when a picture is taken of them en masse, will it shew that the demography of the country as a whole is properly reflected? Just a question.
Mdu – “Mouse by Moseneke=good riddance, I meant to express relief at him being overlooked as the next in line, I am really relieve as you are obviously distressed.”
No, no, no – I’m not distressed by Ncgobo’s appointment at all – even though (tongue in the cheek as I suggested to Mzo in the other blog-post below) he was the single dissenting judge in the seizure warrant judgment who would’ve ruled in favour of Zuma (wasn’t that the case that emanated from Hlophe’s court?). I respect his qualifiations, his competence, his experience, his seniority (above Moseneke and, especially Hlophe!) in the CC, his open-mindedness when it comes to human rights jurisprudence, his stature and his suitability for appointment to the office of CJ.
What could distress me, as pointed out to Skhokho above, is any suggestion that Zuma now has political carte blanche to hire and fire the incumbents of the posts of CJ, DCJ, PSCA and DPSCA, just because he is now the new President of the country, and which is what your initial “good riddance” remark signified.
I must however also say that Skhokho’s shocking (in Afrikaans that is almost what his name spells) remark that Ncgobo, a 100% Zulu Boy (tongue in the cheek) might not be pro-transformation “because he has shown over the previous years that he is either racist against our South (sic) Africans or is simply not interested” is very distressing indeed. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggeste that such is the case and the remark actually questions the integrity of Jacob Zuma himself. (Now, while I might not have any qualms with questioning the President’s integrity in other matters, to say or imply that he has an anti-transformation agenda in his choice for the office of CJ, albeit only temporary [remember however that his term of office can be extended in terms of an Act of Parliament], is sure to shock his supporters – no?)
Skhokho, I don’t think that Ngcobo J is being anti-S. Africans. I believe that there is some sort of agreement between the CC and some of the foreign universities of countries that the CC will take a certain amount of foreign “students” to be CC clerks. On the issue of race, it depends on who the top candidates are and who he will be able to work with best. If the black candidetes had come from affluent families and the white candidate is from a poor family and suffered abuse etc but rose above that then it could be that they should get that opportunity more than the black candidates. Don’t just look at race and think you’ve got the answer.
You, sadly, seem to be one of those people who think transformation is all about race, and maybe even political re-deployment.
See the fact that the announcement showed the appointment to be unconstitutional.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=nw20090807153123971C665735
Whether incompetence in the Presidency, or whether it is a disregard for procedure, this is deeply disturbing.
Here is a candidate for “The Statements That You Will Not Hear from the President” (c’mon Piere, I am sure you could come up with a few along these lines):
“I, and my advisers, have made a mistake. We have erred in not folowing Constitutional procedures in announcing ghte appointment of the new Chief Justice. I have spoken to Judge Ngcobo and apologised. I have advised him that the announcement of his intended appointment has been withdrawn. I will now engage in the constitutionally required process. I have also explained to Judge Ngcobo that there is no guarantee that he will be selected at the end of this process. He has graciously accepted this. Once more, I apologise to the people of South Africa for this lapse.”
The ANC’s recorded intention to:
“transform the collective mindset of the judiciary to bring it into
consonance with the vision and aspirations of the millions who
engaged in struggle to liberate our country from white
minority domination”;
is already well advanced, in the less formalistic approach, of especially
the higher Courts, and the relaxing of time limits.
It’s common knowledge that current Indian litigations drag out for years,
and sometimes for generations. I assume that at independence they took
over the English time limits, as did SA. But with the realities of Indian
life, these time limits were seen to be not achievable.
Were the rules accordingly changed, or were they just ignored ?
——–
As SA transforms, it’s politically difficult to admit that time-rules can’t
be met due to the society ‘un’-developing. I’ve been studying CCT 12/07,
[ http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2007/24.html ]
as, presumably, one of the latest authorities on late condonation.
Is there an official acknowledgment that mid 1900′s designed time
limits can’t realistically be met in currently incapacitated SA?
PS. does this forum ever spread knowledge, by providing answers,
to posed questions, like Usenet does ?
Admittedly blog-format is less suitable for threaded-dialog.
Mike Atkins // Aug 7, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Ncgobo J has not yet been ‘appointed’ in the true sense of the word. He is just Jacob Zuma’s prime choice for the posistion, and that is what has been announced. The announcement of this choice does not mean that s 174(3) has now been overlooked as suggested by the DA et al. Nothing wrong for the President to ‘nominate’ or ‘publicise’ his choice for CJ before ‘consulting’ with the JSC and leaders of parties represented in the NA; and, if during the ‘consultation process’ he is not convinced that another person would be a better candidate, to then ‘appoint’ him in terms of s 174(3). This is how ncgobo sees it according to an article in Beeld this morning. An interesting remark by him is that, if he is in fact ‘appointed’ when Langa CJ leaves office, he is not necessarily limited to a period of two years in that office. He points out that the President may request him to serve as CJ up to the age of 75 years, which is 19 years from now. This might mean, however, that he has not only been ‘approached’ to see whether he would be willing to serve as CJ, but that the discussions went deeper than that. Hopefully this shows that even Jacob Zuma has a distrust in Hlophe JP being up to the job of leading the Highest Court or even of serving on it. But, maybe I’m reading too much into what Ngcobo has been saying at his home in the South of KZN.
Skhokho Radebe complains that “with Whites and foreign Clerks constantly appointed to his chamber. He cant
tell me that RSA has no competent African Student or young
Lawyers.
Well if he is a Harvard graduate, he’s substantially de-muntufied. Even Mbeki, had to go because he’d lost his Toy-toy groove.
After living abroad you’d also prefer to employ those educated in ‘the Federation of Rhodesia & Nyasaland’. Hence xenophobia ?
My query to *legal* usenet of ‘how can citizens see the law as being just, when an accused Judge needs a [blanke nogal] lawyer to speak for him ?’
got the explanation, that ‘it’s about litigating-skills, which need practice’.
Which confirms that it’s about “game skills” more than the merits of the case.
No wonder there’s rampant crime and rioting in the streets.
@Anonymouse, yes the majority are white and come from affluent families. Out of 25 clerks, only 4 Black, i indian and the rest is white Clerks, mostly from Western Cape University.
@Nkululeko, we have many talented Law Students and graduates in RSA, especially blacks who come from poor families. The demographics of the clerks are shocking to say the least. This does not reflect the fact that we are trying to address the imbalances of the past, and that Clerks must mirror the demographics and make-up of society. Especially from the supposed protectors of the Constitution.
@Mike Atkins, i agree with you post. But i must correct you and the media and the supposed Judge that they interviewed. A judge of the Concourt retires either at 70 or after he or she has completed 12 years as a concourt Judge, whichever comes first. Except where an Act of Paliament extends the period. SEE SECTION 176(1) of the Constitution. The 12 years is no-renewable unless the Act of Parliament is passed and it provides otherwise. see the wording of section 176(1) of the Constitution. there id nothing there about 75 years.
I think we should be careful of what we ingest from the media, a lot of it is unresearched and based on undisclosed sources, which begs the question whether these unnamed sources existed in the first place?
Skhokho
You’re making more sense these days… The CC is NOT an affirmative action platform, it is far too important for us to get people who can perform and have an interest in Constitutional Law and Human Rights Law. If black “students” are the top in their class but want to do other tings then let tem, those who want to be CC clerks can then do so. Stop forcing the issue. And in the legal profession the top rungs should rather mirror the demographics of the profession then those of the entire country because it is not those people who are in law.
On the terms of office. Skhokho is correct that its 70yrs, for retirement. I think this was to avoid making our CC like the USA Federal Supreme Court with its lifetime appointments. That also seems to be one of the reasons to ensure that the President consults the opposition leaders AND he should get good legal advisors (he can afford it now, can’t he?).
What I would like is an Act of Parliament that extends the terms of O’Regan et Sachs JJ. If Mokgoro J is also near the door, I would love for her to stay. they bring about a different way of looking at the law. I also believe that their findings are, at times, more accurate than the majority finding (the case of voting and green bar-coded ID’s and, S v Jordan .
Skhoko et Nkululeko – I take it the reference to the misconception that the term of office of a CC judge could be extended to 75 was directed to my post in response of Mike Atkins’ post, not his. However, I agree wiith you that the Constitution talks about 70 years of age, not 75. My reference to 75 was only based on what Ncgobo J ‘reportedly’ (assuming that the reporting is correct – Hi Mzo!) told the media. As far as the rest of my post is concerned, it appears that we agree.
As far as the law clerks are concerned – how long does one stay a ‘law clerk’? Is there room for AA in the foreseeable future? Furthermore, specifically directed at Skhoko’s feeling that Ncgobo is biased in this regard: Are the law clerks appointed by the Justices, or by the Admnistrative component of the Department of Justice (that so dearly wants to take control of the Judiciary)?
@Anonymouse and @Nkululeko, The concourt receives many applications for Law Clerk positions, and many of them are high achieving individuals black, white, indians and coloureds. But sadly, more whites are appointed every year. Now this is not at idem with our Constitutional democracy. I know this because my brother was a Law Clerk at the court last year.
The term of a Law Clerk is one year, and may be extended by further period of seix months at the discretion of the Justices and the Justice that the Clerk works for.
Clerks are appointed by the Justices themselves after extensive screening and interviews, which the Justices conduct themselves or asks another Justice to conduct them on their behalf. The Justice department has no role whatsoever other than drafting the contracts and paying the salaries.
Clerks are appointed based on strict requirements and one of the requirements is race, balance must be achieved, ie people from rural areas, suburbs, different university law schools must come together.
The CC must be the first to lead by example in complying with the Constitution, the demographics must mirror what we see in society. People must not come to the court and wonder why there are more whites than blacks, coloureds in a society where whites are a minority and in a society where we are trying to redress the imbalances of the past.
I assure you that there are a lot of blacks who are good in Human rights Law and Connstitutional law, but are constantly overlooked by the CC.
I’m offended by you remark Nkululeko that i make more these days. Frankly, you have your own opinions and i have mine, who are you to tell me that i make more sense these days?????. You dont even know me that well, but your arrogance allows you to comment in such an offensive, school boy manner!
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/Politics/1057/01f82bd2b2c145ad95011d289b2f783b/19-08-2009-02-17/Zuma_reassures_opposition_parties