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.
The DGRU’s focus on judicial governance has led to it making available to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) research reports on candidates for judicial appointment, and to DGRU researchers attending, monitoring and commenting on the interviews of candidates for judicial appointment. Such reports have been complied for the September 2009, October 2010, April 2011, October 2011, April 2012, June 2012 and October 2012 interviews, as well as the Chief Justice’s interview in September 2011.
The intention of these reports continues to be to assist the JSC by providing an objective insight into the judicial records of the short-listed candidates. The reports are also intended to provide civil society and other interested stakeholders with a basis on which to assess candidates’ suitability for appointment to the bench.
The DGRU has recently created a database that contains all our reports
This database presents the DGRU’s reports on candidates for judicial appointments, which have been compiled for the Judicial Service Commission’s interviews since September 2009. The reports summarise candidate’s reported and unreported judgments.
The reports present the dates on which cases were heard, the dates on which judgments were delivered, and note subsequent upholding or overturning by appeal courts, where such information was available at the time the reports were complied.
The database allows the reports to be searched according to a candidate’s name, the provincial division to which they were applying to be appointed or in which they had delivered judgments, the name of a case, and the year in which the case was decided. It is possible to search under multiple categories simultaneously.
We hope that this database will make the results of our research easily accessible to anybody who may wish to research the track record of candidates for judicial appointments. The reports contain a sample of candidate’s judgments and are not intended to cover all the judgments a candidate has written.
The database can be found at http://www.dgrujudgements.co.za/BACK TO TOP