There is a dollop of irony in the MK Party's (MKP) call for members of the judiciary to step up, declare their interests and be subjected to immediate lifestyle audits to explain some of their so-called “lavish lifestyles”.
The party explained on Wednesday it was “drawing a line in the sand” in demanding robust transparency from judges as they wielded immense constitutional power and influence over the lives and freedoms of citizens.
Thus, the party correctly pointed out, judges needed to be held to a higher standard of scrutiny and criticism in society. If MPs had to declare their assets, the same should apply to judges. So far, so good.
But why the sudden need to turn a spotlight — or put differently, cast a shadow over — the judiciary, from the highest echelons of the Constitutional Court to the lower benches?
The party claimed the public deserved to know who funded the lavish life of “some judges” with “unexplained wealth”, whether relationships influenced their decisions and what overseas trips they had over the past five years. The questions may have planted a seed of doubt about the integrity of the judiciary, but were not backed up by hard evidence of such malfeasance.
MKP was at pains to portray their stance as not being an attack on the judiciary, but instead “defence of democracy and the will of the people” because the rule of law was at risk if judges continued to operate in a “cocoon of untouchability”.
South Africa could not, explained the party, have a judiciary “shielded from the same transparency expected of other arms of state” and judges were “not infallible, but human and prone like all of us to error, influence and even bias, whether conscious or otherwise. The long-standing myth of judicial immunity from human frailty must be challenged if we are to build a judiciary that is truly beyond reproach.”
MKP said it hoped to change the constitution to ensure parliamentary sovereignty so “the will of the people prevails, which cannot and should not be reversed by judges who are not legislators but interpreters of the law passed by parliament as per the will of the people”.
MK Party leader Jacob Zuma set the stage for not declaring his interests when he became president in 2010. Former public protector Thulisile Madonsela found he had violated the executive code of ethics
And therein lies an uncomfortable truth: it is no secret that MKP leader Jacob Zuma has been entangled in litigation for decades in bruising court battles. Likewise has the party's leader in the National Assembly, impeached judge president John Hlophe.
Would it not be easier for MKP MPs to simply ask the Office of the Chief Justice for a list of all the overseas trips undertaken by judges over five years?
The judiciary is regarded as a cornerstone of democracy, tasked with upholding the rule of law and the constitution. Courts are independent by law and judges are required to uphold the law impartially. They should be beyond reproach, but what MK omitted to say is they already declare their financial interests, annually.
In the financial year 2023/24, there were 252 judges in active service and all disclosed their registrable interests by March 31 2024, according to the Judicial Service Commission annual report for 2023/24.
MK Party leader Jacob Zuma set the stage for not declaring his interests when he became president in 2010. Former public protector Thulisile Madonsela found he had violated the executive code of ethics.
MK Party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela, who issued the latest statement calling for closer scrutiny of the judiciary, was last month fined R10,000 for failing to declare, as required by parliament, his financial interests last year by October 14.
Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? If anything, it serves to remind us to interrogate everything said by politicians.
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.