Quote of the week

As seductive as certain perspectives of international law may appear to those who disagree with the outcome of the interpretative exercise conducted by this Court in the contempt judgment, sight must not be lost of the proper place of international law, especially in respect of an application for rescission. The approach that my Brother adopts may be apposite in the context of an appeal, where a court is enjoined to consider whether the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the law. Although it should be clear by now, I shall repeat it once more: this is not an appeal, for this Court’s orders are not appealable. I am deeply concerned that seeking to rely on articles of the ICCPR as a basis for rescission constitutes nothing more than sophistry.

Khampepe J
Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 28 (17 September 2021)
10 January 2007

Justice Motata steps aside

I have new respect for Transvaal Judge President, Bernard Ngoepe, after he took swift action to minimize the damage to the bench caused by the drunken driving charges against Justice Nkola Motata.

He immediately met with the wayward judge and instructed him to go on a leave of absence until after the completion of his trial. He also indicated that this is not necessarily the end of the matter and that the situation would be “looked at again” after the completion of the trial.

His action sends a signal that the issue is indeed serious and that Justice Motata has a case to answer. This contrasts sharply with the way in which the JSC dealt with the Hlope matter.

The big test will of course come when/if Justice Motata is convicted on the drunken driving charge. If convicted, he will not only be sertified as a drunk driver but also, more damaging to my mind, as a liar and a bully.

To the Sunday Times he claimed that he was not drunk and only had tea with a colleague. Like Watergate, I think the cover-up would be more damaging to his credibility than the crime. If convicted he should therefore do the decent thing and resign.

If he does not resign, Justice Ngoepe should whisper in his ear to persuade him to do the right thing – perhaps by threatening impeachment if he does not do the honourable thing.

I suppose the big test for the Judge President will come if that scenario plays out. Will he have the backbone to get rid of a judge when a certain click in the Judicial Services Commission may frown upon it? Does he perhaps have ambitions to sit in the Constitutional Court?

If Justice Motata is convicted and no action is taken against him it will be a dark day for the judiciary in South Africa indeed.

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