Although judicial proceedings will generally be bound by the requirements of natural justice to a greater degree than will hearings before administrative tribunals, judicial decision-makers, by virtue of their positions, have nonetheless been granted considerable deference by appellate courts inquiring into the apprehension of bias. This is because judges ‘are assumed to be [people] of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances’: The presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight, for as Blackstone opined at p. 361 in Commentaries on the Laws of England III . . . ‘[t]he law will not suppose possibility of bias in a judge, who is already sworn to administer impartial justice, and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea’. Thus, reviewing courts have been hesitant to make a finding of bias or to perceive a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of a judge, in the absence of convincing evidence to that effect.
I imagine Jacob Zuma would be on the list. Maybe Jackie Selebi. The odd Miss South Africa if anyone could remember their names. Judge Motata who claimed to have had “a cup of tea” before crashing his car through a wall and swearing at the bystanders? Anyone admitting to working in a Home Affairs Office. And, of course, the presenters of Top Billing. Who else?
UPDATE: This story seems to be true as it is being reported on several Internet sites.