So many questions: Judge Isaac Madondo

Judge Isaac Madondo told the Judicial Service Commission Judge Chiman Patel should not be judge-president of KZN since Indians were not as oppressed as blacks by apartheid. Chris Barron asked him.

Are you a racist?

No.

But you don't think an Indian judge should be JP?

No, that's misquoted altogether.

You were asked if it was time to appoint an Indian JP and you said, "I don't think so." Is that what you said?

Yes. I stated my reasons.

So that's an accurate quote?

It's out of context. What I was saying, in terms of the demographics, I don't think so. Secondly, there are a number of hardships among the people who suffered. A person from another race may not be in a position to know them in the same way as I do. That's what I was saying. Not because he's an Indian.

Because he's not black?

No, that's nonsense. If someone thinks like that, it's nonsense.

You're saying that, as an Indian, he doesn't have the same insight?

Do you have an insight of the rural people in the villages? Do you? Unless you have an insight into the way they live and the hardship of their experience ...

So should only Zulus be appointed to the bench in KZN?

I don't even want to answer that question because it doesn't make sense at all.

Wouldn't only Zulus have that kind of insight?

No. I was not saying that. I'm talking about equal representation in terms of the demographics; I was not saying only Zulus must be appointed judges in KZN. That's nonsense.

But if it's about insight, surely the same argument you used against Patel would apply to a non-Zulu candidate?

If I go to Free State with an Afrikaans-speaking people and their culture and everything, I would not know everything with them. I'm saying those things should be taken into account. Not because of his race or because he is not black enough.

Surely a non-Zulu candidate from outside KZN would be disqualified on the same grounds?

I'm not saying he must be disqualified. That's something else you are saying. I'm saying there are other things one should look at when deciding these issues

Shouldn't merit and ability be the most important things?

Merit and ability also. There are things which are attached to ability. Because if I'm going to represent Afrikaner people, I must know exactly what their problems are.

Is Africanisation of the bench more important than excellence?

No, they are equally important. But let's say we have the majority of the population, if you look at demographics, they'll tell you how many whites should be here. But you should also look at efficiency. As you know, there are whites who are still being appointed because of their experience and expertise. So we have these people, but we still need those other people. That does not mean we should forget to increase the number of blacks so we reach the appropriate quota.

Would you agree it's happening pretty well in KZN if you consider that a third of the judges are black?

Must there be a third? If you know the demographics, must there be a third?

So 86% of the bench must be black?

That's your conclusions, not mine. I'm saying fair and equitable representation is determined by demographics.

Would you treat a black litigant differently from a white litigant because the white litigant had experienced less oppression?

No, you can't do that. They should be treated equally, irrespective of their past. That's what the constitution says. It also says that appointments must be informed by demographics. The constitution says that, not me.

So you're just applying the constitution. You're not playing the race card to get the top job?

No, it was not that. To tell you the truth, I do not want the top job.

Why did you apply for it?

I did not apply. I was approached by people who believe that I can do the job.