Former chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng. (Madelene Cronjé)
Former chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng has been given 10 days to publicly apologise for his controversial pro-Zionist comments in which he criticised South African foreign policy towards Israel at a webinar hosted by the Jerusalem Post during 2020.
This comes after the judicial conduct appeal committee confirmed an earlier finding by Johannesburg deputy judge president Phineas Mojapelo that Mogoeng had involved himself in a political controversy through his comments.
The committee, in a majority decision by justices Dumisani Zondi and Nambitha Dambuza, confirmed the finding that Mogoeng had breached article 12 of the judicial code of conduct through his utterances.
In a statement released late on Thursday, the committee said it had further found that Mogoeng had breached article 14 of the code in that he “was involved in extrajudicial activities which are incompatible with the confidence in and the impartiality of judges”.
The committee said it had upheld Mogoeng’s appeal against finding that he had violated other sections of the code.
It also directed the chief justice to “issue an unconditional apology for becoming involved in political controversy through his utterances at the online seminar (webinar) hosted by the Jerusalem Post on 23 June 2020”.
Mogoeng was directed to release the apology to the office of the chief justice and the media within 10 days of the decision.
The complaint against Mogoeng – a Christian fundamentalist who had a history of making controversial religious and political statements during his tenure as chief justice – was made by Africa4Palestine, South Africa Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) and the Women’s Cultural Group.
Mojapelo ruled against Mogoeng last year and the then-chief justice appealed.
The committee said a third judge, Margaret Victor, had penned a minority decision in which she would have upheld the entire appeal and set aside the findings and the remedial order.
The committee upheld Mojapelo’s finding that Mogoeng had “intruded into the territory of the executive by criticising its policy”.
“The statements made by the chief justice at the webinar were of such a nature that they could diminish the public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary,” the committee said in its ruling on the appeal.
“Our country decided that it wants judges who do not step into political disputes to advance their individual political views. Until that ordained ethical framework is duly changed our judges are bound by it.”
[/membership]