OPINION - As a legal practitioner I recall studying the first case regarding criticism of judges.
I post this in the context of the explosion of calls for the Judicial Services Commission to institute disciplinary proceedings against Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, following his utterances in support of Israel and, by inference, its apartheid policies.
Political parties such as the ANC (against the Chief Justice) and the ACDP (for the Chief Justice) have taken entrenched positions over the matter.
Did the learned Chief Justice breach his oath of office? I think so but I leave the ultimate decision to the constitutionally mandated JSC, which I hope doesn’t slouch over this matter as it has vis-a-vis Judge Nkola Motata and, if there’s a prima facie case made out, take disciplinary steps.
There’s much riding on this, especially confidence that we have an impartial judiciary.
We need a firm and robust process with all the rights and guarantees of due and fair process to handle such issues.
A previous matter established the customary exercise of “tolerating vigorous, outspoken and intensified criticism” of the judiciary, mindful of the inherent dangers lurking therein.
In balancing constitutional guarantees, the issue requires parties to step back and leave it to the JSC to exercise its duty, and to understand the sensitivity of issues such as the Chief Justice’s impartiality and fitness to hold office. There’s a very thin line between free speech and contempt of court.
Saber Ahmed Jazbhay Durban
Daily News
Do you have something on your mind; or want to comment on the big stories of the day? We would love to hear from you. Please send your letters to [email protected] or [email protected] All letters must have your proper name and a valid email address to be considered for publication.IOL is committed to freedom of speech as long as it is not derogatory or harmful to others. Connect with us on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram to join the conversation.