EDITORIAL | Judge’s comments crossed line that could have put credibility of judiciary in question

The judiciary’s primary role is to interpret the law and oversee justice in society. More so in a society whose history has been marred by injustice and exclusionary, violent laws, making it an important platform for bringing about redress beyond bringing culprits to account.

Last week the country was privy to an uncomfortable moment when judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng, presiding over the Senzo Meyiwa murder case, made inappropriate, racially charged remarks in court over a notice of absence from one of the legal representatives.

Mokgoatlheng, in reaction to the notice that he read out in court, said: “I don't think a white advocate can have the gall to ask me that.”

On Monday he made a heartfelt public apology, going as far as stamping his regret on the life of his late son.

He said he had never behaved the way he did in the many years he had been in the judicial system. “I agree, my conduct was questionable and incorrect ... I apologise to the accused, the lawyers, the public, the judges, magistrates, students, religious leaders — to everyone in South Africa who felt hurt or insulted by my actions.”

In addition, the apology was on the back of being reprimanded by his wife, the judge president and the deputy judge president.

The apology is a reflection of accountability and should be viewed as such. However, this was a critical moment in reflecting on the impact of the utterances of a man at his level with such a huge responsibility on his shoulders.

Reducing Mnisi's apology for attending the event to a slur on black competence was not only irrational but also unfair

It raised uncomfortable questions about the decorum of the courtroom, not only for legal representatives but judges too, and what is expected from those entrusted with the highest judiciary.

Charles Mnisi, the lawyer who was at the receiving end of the lashing because he wanted to participate in the Comrades Marathon, did get to the finish line. Reducing Mnisi's apology for attending the event to a slur on black competence was not only irrational but also unfair. The judge's comments crossed a line that could easily put the credibility of the judiciary in question, one that we cannot afford as a nation relying on their just conduct.

The comment filtered professionalism through the lens of racial expectations — a dangerous precedent coming from a man in a position of legal power. The intent may have been innocent at the time, but the impact requires interrogation and unrelenting calling out. Such comments threaten the very idea of impartiality, an important role entrusted to the legal system.

He apologised with an acceptable depth and length of emotions and vulnerability — something defined as mea culpa (acknowledgment of fault) in the legal space. However, no matter how heartfelt, it does not undo the impression it left on the public. He is only human and can harbour biases, but this should not have been acted out in court.