The judiciary had been accused of being “captured” but it was an accusation “we reject with the contempt it deserves,” said chief justice Raymond Zondo on Tuesday.
The chief justice was addressing judges and magistrates at a judges’ conference — the first since 2011 — which will be looking at strengthening judicial independence and efficiency.
Zondo said for four years he called for anyone who had evidence that the judiciary in South Africa was captured.
“Up to now, nobody has come with any evidence,” he said.
He said the accusation was made “by those who wish to ensure that the judiciary of South Africa is not trusted by the public, that it is looked at with suspicion, because it suits their purposes that the judiciary should be viewed with suspicion”.
You don’t want to give something that’s nonsense too much publicity
— Raymond Zondo, chief justice
Later in a media briefing, in response to questions, Zondo addressed two recent incidents where questions had been raised about the integrity of the judiciary. The first was an “intelligence report” submitted my MP Bantu Holomisa to parliament’s standing committee on intelligence, which he said was “purportedly” written by former intelligence DG Thembisile Majola.
In fact, it was not an intelligence report at all. It was written by a disgruntled advocate, Anthony Brink. That much was made clear in the document itself by a footnote and from Brink’s website, which included all the correspondence revealing that he had drafted the “report” and sent it to her for her to submit to the Presidency.
When she did not do so, he submitted it to the Presidency himself, saying to minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshaveni that “how you deal with [this] will likely secure or collapse your career” and threatening to take matters further if she did nothing.
Zondo said that when he saw the so-called report, it did not take him long to see it was not an intelligence report but said he did not respond because sometimes, by responding, the judiciary would be giving credibility to something that was not worthy.
“You don’t want to give something that’s nonsense too much publicity,” he said.
Judge president Dunstan Mlambo — at whom much of the “report’s” ire was directed — was also at the press briefing. He said the convention in the legal community was that the profession came to the defence of the judiciary in these situations, as it could be “untidy” for the judiciary to respond to matters that may one day come before judges for adjudication.
The second question related to a recent article in the Daily Maverick, which questioned the medical boarding of judge Cassim Sardiwalla, who was presiding over a trial with evidence “that implicated David Mabuza, South Africa’s former deputy president, in a large Mpumalanga criminal enterprise”.
“Was there a conspiracy to quash the case?” asked the article in the Daily Maverick. The article pointed to the fact that, after his boarding, Sardiwalla had delivered at least five judgments.
As Zondo was delivering his address, a statement from the justice minister was released, saying the article was “laced [with] innuendos and speculation”.
The “assumption” that President Cyril Ramaphosa could “of his own volition just decide to discharge a judge” was incorrect, said the statement. There was process: Sardiwalla met the Gauteng judge president and provided him with a medical report, in which it was recommended that he be discharged, it said. Neither the president nor justice minister Ronald Lamola knew that Sardiwalla was presiding over the trial referred to in the Daily Maverick article, said the statement.
It added that when judges are discharged, they are expected to finalise their pending matters.
At the press conference, Mlambo explained that it was a condition of Sardiwalla’s medical discharge that he finalise his reserved matters and finish up the trial.
But later, Sardiwalla had said he would not be able to “do justice” in the trial. It was then that they called the litigants together to decide how to proceed — to decide whether the trial should begin afresh or a new judge be appointed to pick up where Sardiwalla left off.
That for me will remain one of the most important moments in the history of our judiciary
— Zondo on Zuma contempt of court judgment
“Anyone who wants to accuse me of being involved in some stratagem to influence the outcome of this matter has not considered these facts,” Mlambo said.
Pretoria deputy judge president Aubrey Ledwaba added that the five judgments had been prepared before Sardiwalla’s medical boarding but were delivered subsequently. Maverick reporter Kevin Bloom had sent questions to Mlambo and the Presidency before publication but these were unanswered at the time of publication.
During his speech earlier, Zondo said the judiciary had been “tested” and “come out strong” each time.
He said the greatest test was in 2021 when the justices of the Constitutional Court were faced with threats in the media when the Constitutional Court was faced with a case after “a former president” defied its earlier court order.
He was referring to the Constitutional Court’s decision to hold former president Jacob Zuma in contempt of court.
“That for me will remain one of the most important moments in the history of our judiciary,” he said.
“They stood their ground. And there are high courts which have done the same in various matters. And that is very important.”
Zondo said next year would be 30 years since South Africa became a constitutional democracy. “I wish that we shall do more, as we recruit judges, to make sure that all those that enter the judiciary have got what it takes to make sure that no matter what the circumstances … they will always be truthful to their oaths of office. That is one of the things that we must take with us into the fourth decade of our democracy.”
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.