The Justice and Constitutional Development Department said on Sunday that the independence of the judiciary will never be compromised, after reports that judges were up in arms over apparent plans to do just that.
”There is no such thing as taking away independence. This government made sure this was protected in the Constitution. This government will never do a thing like that,” said the department’s spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago.
He said that judges’ reported all round displeasure at draft Bills to transform the judiciary — discussed in two days of talks with justice officials last week — came as a surprise to the department.
”We don’t know where this comes from … we are on track and are working with the judges,” Kganyago said in response to a Sunday Times report that no judges had spoken in favour of a planned constitutional amendment.
Kganyago said the discussions about a proposed Superior Court Bill, Justice College Bill, a Complaints Mechanism Bill and issues around languages had yielded ”basic agreement” that legislation was needed.
”We discussed legislation. Issues around legislation must be in line with the Constitution. You can’t pre-empt what the Bills will look like and what will happen as a result of them,” he said.
The Sunday Times reported that furious judges had vowed to fight intended changes to the country’s Constitution to, among others, remove the independence of the judiciary, allow judges to be tried and disciplined, and provide that judges be trained at government institutions.
And, Democratic Alliance (DA)spokesperson Sheila Camerer — a Judicial Services Commission and Parliamentary Justice Portfolio Committee member — claimed she witnessed ”senior judge after senior judge angrily denouncing the proposals behind closed doors”.
She said it has been suggested that the Constitution be amended to transfer control of the administration of the courts from the Chief Justice to the Justice Minister, who, in another Bill was also given power over the rules of the courts.
The Constitution states that the ”Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and High Courts have the inherent power to protect and regulate their own process, and to develop the common law, taking into account the interests of justice”.
The Superior Courts Bill dealt with the rationalisation of courts, to create high courts in all provinces and ensure better public access to courts, said Kganyago.
”We want to make sure that among others, we have a list of boundaries so that the courts are in line with the new South Africa,” he said.
The institution of a complaints mechanism would provide for accountability of the courts and judges.
”These discussions have been going on for a while, we are just consulting to come up with a product,” said Kganyago.
”There will be different views. We have agreed on continuous interaction between the department and the judiciary. We will continue to talk until we have a document,” he said.
Reacting to reports that while the slow transformation of the judiciary was publicly criticised and that judges are given an opportunity to respond only behind closed doors, Kganyago said this approach had been agreed on by all present.
”The idea was to speak about issues [and] reach consensus without [the talks] becoming sensationalised,” he said.
The DA has suggested that the full record of proceedings at the meeting — including judges’ representations — be made public to reveal the full extent of judicial dissatisfaction with the proposals. – Sapa