So many questions: Jeremy Gauntlett

Top advocate Jeremy Gauntlett has for the fourth time been rejected by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) as a judge on the Western Cape bench. Chris Barron asked him ...

Any idea why it took so long for the JSC to provide reasons? Because the reasons didn't exist.

Do you think they were created after the event? I know so.

How do you know? Because the first answer on October 24 was that it was "inappropriate" for the reasons to be given that day, because the chairman [Chief Justice Mogoeng] would be addressing the media the next day. On October 25 he did not disclose them. They were ultimately produced on November 6. No members of the JSC were circulated the reasons, they were supplied by one individual. So they're not the reasons of the JSC.

So the JSC lied on at least two fronts? It's your word.

Do you think the JSC knew who it would recommend before the hearings began? I think they had a slate in mind, yes.

Making the hearings a charade? They certainly do not serve the function that they are intended to.

How would you describe the reasons given? Interesting. Firstly, they've introduced a new quality for judicial appointments: humility. The JSC itself has gone to great trouble to list required attributes for judges. This is not one of them and has not been applied to any other candidate. Unlike other candidates, I have not thought that God has called me to be a judge.

You have served 14 years as an appeal court judge in Lesotho. Are you aware of any complaints by fellow judges about your lack of humility? No. In fact, tributes were paid before the commission by the two presidents of that court over the period of 14 years, one of whom said I was the ablest person he had sat with as a judge.

The JSC gave as a reason for recommending Mokgoatji Dolamo his popularity with fellow judges. Is popularity an important qualification? No, quite the converse. Courtrooms are places for dissection and vivisection. Being popular is not at all desirable. It's certainly not an attribute of independence.

Why are they so determined not to make you a judge? One factor is that they sense that I might be a person with a degree of independence. I do think there are some injured tail feathers, the politics of envy ... If they are going to appoint a white male, it would be a far more congenial one.

And also because you accept recourse to arbitration (where parties settle out of court), whereas Owen Rogers, the white lawyer recommended by the JSC, does not? That is certainly one of the factors.

Is that a vote of no confidence in black judges? There have been very few instances in which we haven't gone to arbitration from the outset because it involved a large project or immediate urgency. In three instances we've gone from the court to arbitration, each time for a good reason. Only once did it entail a black judge and that was for a good reason, which I personally explained to the satisfaction of the deputy judge president concerned.

So it's not racist? Absolutely not, as far as I'm concerned. But I do think there is a doctrinal aversion to arbitration by a number of members of the JSC.

What about the transformation argument? The constitution does not require national or regional demographics, it requires the JSC to strive to be representative.

But it puts quality first? Exactly. The first provision is quality, the second is to consider the issue of representivity. That must mean that on certain occasions you will put up two or three white people and on other occasions none at all.

So there are constitutional grounds for a challenge? Yes.

Is this where you intend taking it? I am not a litigant and I would not seek to litigate my way into a judicial appointment. But there are a number of entities and individuals who, I know, are considering that.

Are you going to put yourself forward for the Constitutional Court? Yes. Mamphela Ramphele, Sir Sydney Kentridge QC and others are to nominate me next week.