The alarming rise in complaints against South Africa’s judges — 350 over the past three years, with 132 lodged in 2024/25 alone — is a warning light the country cannot afford to ignore.
Chief justice Mandisa Maya’s frank acknowledgement that public confidence in the judiciary has waned is both sobering and commendable.
The complaints themselves tell a story: delays in handing down judgments, public dissatisfaction with adverse rulings, allegations of misconduct and even incompetence.
While not every complaint is justified, disgruntled litigants often mistake unfavourable rulings for wrongdoing, the sheer volume points to systemic pressure and administrative fragility.
The Judicial Conduct Committee, tasked with assessing these complaints, operates with only five judges, a wholly inadequate number given the scale of public engagement and the complexity of matters before it.
The delays in concluding investigations, compounded by limited administrative support and jurisdictional gaps relating to acting judges, only deepen public frustration.
Chief justice Maya’s appeal for legislative amendments to expand the committee and strengthen its capacity is overdue. Without a well-resourced accountability mechanism, the judiciary’s constitutional promise of integrity remains aspirational rather than guaranteed.
The handling of sexual harassment within the judiciary is another front on which zero tolerance must mean exactly that.
The recent high-profile case involving Eastern Cape judge president Selby Mbenenge highlights why a clear, enforced sexual-harassment policy is essential. The legitimacy of the bench cannot coexist with impunity for those accused of abusing their authority.
Yet the crisis is not only disciplinary. The Constitutional Court’s struggle to deliver reserved judgments on time, with 13 outstanding for more than six months, is something that exposes deeper structural constraints. The court faces an unrelenting flow of high-stakes, high-complexity cases, often involving sprawling records and far-reaching constitutional questions.
Maya’s plans to hire experienced lawyers from 2026 to assist with sifting applications is sensible and long overdue. A constitutional court cannot function effectively while drowning in unmanageable caseloads.
But we need to tread with circumspection on the proposal for constitutional amendments enabling smaller judicial panels for what are considered less complex matters.
The high courts and the supreme court of appeal already rely on these panels and their judgments — which include what the constitutional court has termed errors in law which have had to be overturned at the highest court. Now if the highest court’s panel is as small as the SCA or the High Court, would this not increase the probability for unreviewable judicial errors in law by the highest court in the land?
The credibility of the courts is not merely a legal matter; it is a democratic necessity. When people lose faith in the fairness of justice, they lose faith in the system itself. South Africa cannot afford that crisis.
The broader judiciary is equally under strain. Gauteng’s trial rolls stretching into the next decade highlighted a system on the brink, though then judge president Dunstan Mlambo’s embrace of mediation and consequent clearing of trial backlogs offers a model worth expanding.
If alternative dispute resolution can relieve pressure while maintaining fairness, it should be fully integrated into judicial workflow.
However, the most damaging blow to public trust this week comes from the arrest of judge Portia Phahlane on bribery and money laundering charges. The allegations that she accepted gratification for a favourable ruling in a bitter church succession feud strikes at the heart of judicial integrity.
The principle of innocence until proven guilty must always guide criminal proceedings, but the judiciary’s moral authority demands swift and decisive institutional action. Judges Matter is right to urge that she be suspended immediately and that the Judicial Service Commission invoke its extraordinary powers under the JSC Act. If ever there were a case to justify this seldom-used mechanism, this is it.
A judiciary that hesitates to police its own will invite greater distrust, and with it, calls for political interference. South Africa’s constitutional democracy was built on the premise of a strong, independent judiciary capable of protecting rights even against the most powerful. That independence, however, can only survive if accompanied by visible, credible accountability mechanisms.
Maya is spearheading important reforms, including strengthening the office of the chief justice and enhancing institutional independence. However, reforms on paper must be matched by urgent and administrative functions away from the department of justice to create a genuinely unified judiciary. These are structural changes that will matter for decades. But reforms on paper must be matched by urgent, decisive action today.
The credibility of the courts is not merely a legal matter; it is a democratic necessity. When people lose faith in the fairness of justice, they lose faith in the system itself. South Africa cannot afford that crisis.
The judiciary must act faster, more transparently and with an unwavering commitment to integrity to restore the trust the nation depends on.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.