First Thing, Daily Maverick's flagship newsletter

Join the 230 000 South Africans who read First Thing newsletter.

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

JSC interviews: Any hint of the position being predeter...

Defend Truth


JSC interviews: Any hint of the position being predetermined will severely undermine public confidence in the new Chief Justice


Professor Dr Omphemetse S Sibanda is a Professor of Law and the Executive Dean of the Faculty of Management and Law at the University of Limpopo. He holds a Doctor of Laws (in International Economic Law) from North West University, a Master of Laws from Georgetown University Law Centre, US; and an LLB (Hon) and B Juris from the then Vista University, Soweto Campus.

One hopes that in debates on gender diversity in the leadership of the Constitutional Court, the country has reached its Age of Reason and that it will witness the JSC proceedings free of political stain and unswayed by the popularity of the candidates.

The day we all have been waiting for has arrived — the interviews and appointment of the next Chief Justice. With the judiciary, whose legitimacy from the viewpoint of accountability and impartiality being under constant scrutiny; and the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) track record of interviewing candidates under a spotlight, it goes without saying that the start of the interviews will counter-rival interest generated by the release of Part 2 of the Zondo Commission report by President Cyril Ramaphosa.

The three male judges, Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, acting Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Raymond Zondo, Constitutional Court Judge Mbuyiseli Madlanga and the lone female contender, President of the Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Mandisa Maya, will each have to put their best foot forward.

Different commentators and different publications have made a case for and against each of the applicants. Each of these distinguished legal eagles will have the opportunity to publicly demonstrate that they have the requisite skills and ability to secure the judicial appointment, given a fair opportunity to contest the position. 

The president did not have the luxury of a large pool from which to draw candidates for the position, but he surely will hope that the JSC avoids any hint of bungling the process and that the most talented individual will emerge to take the baton from former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng in administering the judiciary and leading the apex court, that does not appear to be without cracks on its Bench.

To borrow from Daily Maverick, “The new Chief Justice must take on the role of compassionate institutional steward to ensure that the institution remains a citadel of justice and a force capable of compelling compliance and ennobling others to fulfil their constitutional responsibilities.” 

One wishes that the country had a solid judicial transformation strategy similar to the UK’s Judicial Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2020-2025, which tilts the scales meritoriously in favour of a candidate Chief Justice who will maintain the spotlight on the role of women judges and the need for personal and professional diversity of the judiciary.

What is so important about the UK’s 2020-2025 strategy in relation to the unfolding events regarding the Chief Justice interviews by the JSC is that it portrays the judiciary and a political landscape that holds dear the principle that “that diversity, inclusion and equality are fundamental to the rule of law and to what judicial office holders do”. 

As previously highlighted, the fairness and legitimacy of the JSC process will be put to the test, and any inkling of the position being predetermined will severely undermine public confidence in and the legitimacy of the country’s foremost defender of the Constitution. 

This Chief Justice interview marathon will mean many things to society and to many individuals. For me, these interviews remind me of the French Revolution and the ideas of the Enlightenment, when philosophers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau and François-Marie Arouet — Voltaire — challenged the thinking of French society on several issues, including diversity, inclusivity and recognition of the role women play in the society.

To a great extent, some of the decisions taken in our society have not been entirely based on reason, but rather on some dull-witted justifications. One hopes that in debates on gender diversity in the leadership of the Constitutional Court, the country has reached its Age of Reason and that it will witness the JSC proceedings free of political stain and unswayed by the popularity of the candidates.

As aptly written by the late Justice Ginsburg, in 2015, in the case of Williams Yulee v. Florida Bar 135 S. Ct. 1656 (2015), “Unlike politicians, judges are not ‘expected to be responsive to [the] concerns’ of constituents.” DM



Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 1

  • With reference to the the concluding comment … unless one clarifies or fully understands what ‘constituents’ entail, we are likely to remain uninformed or unconvinced. Your quest for a ‘reasoned’ approach on the appointment of CJ is likely to falter … for always there will be those who ‘contest’ that their ‘reasoning’ is better than yours ! Labeling them as ‘dull-witted’ justifications will not suffice . Your focus on ‘gender’ sensitivity/inclusivity in appointments does not answer a previous question I raised – what about those outside the male/female construct – i.e. undetermined ? Your reference to “not without cracks” already spells out how your quest is not going to be met. The fact that the original interview process (which resulted in the elimination of one female nominee) by the JSC was found to be compromised – resulting in a ‘re-run’… already introduces an element of doubt about the ‘rationality’ of the JSC operation. When certain members of the JSC can behave unconscionably in its affairs … and get away without any form of sanction (including that of the then chair), are we not expecting too much “reason” in the process ? My simple question to ALL the members of the JSC who sat through that awful first interview is “did you not consider it your personal duty and responsibility to raise objections to questions or observations you found unacceptable or uncomfortable or insulting ? ” Unless and until all JSC members uphold this ethical responsibility of accountability , your quest for a ‘reasoned’ outcome in the process is bound to flounder. While I commend your quest for an Age of Reason, developments around the globe in several spheres of endeavour, suggest (maybe social media focuses on them) an inclination in the opposite direction …. I think you appropriately called it dull-witted justifications. Especially vicious in the hands of those (unlike me) with some legal training ! BUT … we must take succour from the few examples that stand out as beacons of reason and reasonableness, in a milieu of contempt and dastardliness.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted