It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the impact that this error may have on any legal proceeding either pending or contemplated. I need, however, to make the points that follow.
First, there is a need for cool heads in these testing times for our young democracy and its institutions. In this respect, special care has to be taken to avoid ill-advised attacks, which may have the effect of weakening rather than strengthening the country’s institutions, in particular, the judiciary and the courts.
The recent criticisms levelled against members of the judiciary are a case in point. The Constitution sets out to safeguard the position of the judiciary because of the unique and crucial position it occupies in our democracy.
Judges do not take part in every-day debates about the political situation in South Africa, nor do they enter public arenas to defend themselves against attacks directed at themselves.
The value of our judicial system depends on judges doing their work with diligence, competence and integrity and the acceptance by the general population that judges always do their best to live up to these attributes.
As a general rule South African judges do have the requisite integrity, competence and diligence. I should add, however, that the conditions under which judges work are not always ideal. They are often subjected to intense pressure because of the need to finalise cases speedily and the complex nature of the matters they often have to deal with.
While they take great care to produce work of the highest quality, it is inevitable that mistakes will sometimes occur. The legal system is not premised on the absence of mistakes. It is precisely because of this consciousness of human fallibility that the system provides checks and balances by way of appeal and review by higher courts to correct any errors that may have had a material outcome on a case.
Judges are not beyond criticism. It is, however, important that criticism of judicial decisions should be fair and informed so that the confidence of the public in the judiciary is not undermined carelessly or for improper processes.
Where there are complaints they should be channelled correctly and dealt with in a dignified manner, in accordance with the procedures that have been provided.
It goes without saying that there is a heavier responsibility on people in positions of responsibility to desist from indulging in a free-for-all of public recrimination and vilification of the judiciary.
Conduct of that sort not only undermines the Constitution, but it can have the effect of weakening both the judiciary and our democracy. That is a result which would be to the disadvantage of our country and its people.