Quote of the week

Regard must be had to the higher standard of conduct expected from public officials, and the number of falsehoods that have been put forward by the Public Protector in the course of the litigation.  This conduct included the numerous “misstatements”, like misrepresenting, under oath, her reliance on evidence of economic experts in drawing up the report, failing to provide a complete record, ordered and indexed, so that the contents thereof could be determined, failing to disclose material meetings and then obfuscating the reasons for them and the reasons why they had not been previously disclosed, and generally failing to provide the court with a frank and candid account of her conduct in preparing the report. The punitive aspect of the costs order therefore stands.

KHAMPEPE J and THERON J
Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (CCT107/18) [2019] ZACC 29 (22 July 2019)
15 September 2010

Criteria used by JSC when considering judicial appointments

ISSUED BY: JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION

SUMMARY OF THE CRITERIA USED BY THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION WHEN CONSIDERING CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

At its Special Sitting held, in Johannesburg on 10 September 2010, the Judicial Service Commission resolved, after a lengthy debate and a review of the Guidelines that had been adopted in 1998, to publish the criteria used when considering candidates for judicial appointments. This decision is in line with the JSC’s principle that the process of judicial appointments should be open and transparent to the public so as to enhance public trust in the judiciary.

The following criteria are used in the interview of candidates, and in the evaluation exercise during the deliberations by the members of the Commission:

Criteria stated in the Constitution

1. Is the particular applicant an appropriately qualified person?
2. Is he or she a fit and proper person, and
3. Would his or her appointment help to reflect the racial and gender composition of South Africa?

Supplementary Criteria

1. Is the proposed appointee a person of integrity?
2. Is the proposed appointee a person with the necessary energy and motivation?
3. Is the proposed appointee a competent person?
(a) Technically competent
(b) Capacity to give expression to the values of the Constitution
4. Is the proposed appointee an experienced person?
(a) Technically experienced
(b) Experienced in regard to values and needs of the community
5. Does the proposed appointee possess appropriate potential?
6. Symbolism. What message is given to the community at large by a particular appointment?

Issued by the Judicial Service Commission

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest