High Court Judge Kathy Satchwell dealt swiftly with a complaint that her sexuality made her an unsuitable candidate for the Constitutional Court, when she was interviewed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in Soweto on Tuesday.
”My private life is my private life —” said Satchwell, in response to a complaint by the Society for the Protection of the Constitution.
The society’s Zehir Omar, a lawyer, had complained that ”god-fearing” people would not accept a lesbian as a judge.
The society’s concern was put to her by Justice Minister Jeff Radebe, who, in the tradition of ”declaration”, had told the commissioners that he had known her for many years and that she had represented him when he was on a hunger strike while a political prisoner on Robben Island.
Satchwell had to step into the hot seat earlier than expected after Judge Ntsikelelo Phoswa withdrew, citing his age — he is 70.
Satchwell said that in the 13 years she had been a judge, nobody had ever asked for her recusal because of her private life, nor had it been argued in appeals on her work. The only time it had been a public matter was when she had to approach the court personally to get her benefits extended to her partner.
The Constitution included everyone, and if people saw diversity in the Constitutional Court, this was a triumph of the new society over apartheid.
”So I would suggest that Mr Omar and all South Africans looks for commitment to constitutional values.”
If they find them in her, then all other things have no meaning in her practice as a judge.
Satchwell had earlier spoken about her studies and her life’s work, which included studying anthropology and African languages before doing further studies in law; her work with anti-apartheid organisation the Black Sash; and her testimony to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
She runs a trust, using an inheritance, with projects that include providing study space at the Johannesburg public library and the purchase of donkeys and donkey cars for use by women in an extremely isolated village in the Eastern Cape to take pensioners to paypoints or clinics.
Satchwell was also asked about the time she sentenced a nurse to the end of the court session for murdering her abusive husband. She felt this was the most appropriate sentence given that she had already spent time in prison and that she was a nurse who could help in the community.
What would you have done?
Meanwhile, Johannesburg Judge Nigel Willis, during his interview with the JSC, called the Constitutional Court’s decision on the Irene Grootboom case ”a disaster” because it was unimplementable.
”In the end, the Grootboom case was a disaster,” said Willis, when asked to comment on the court’s work. He said the court had acted with the best intentions, but had made ”one or two errors of judgement”.
Judges should understand that socio-economic issues are more complicated than issuing orders, expecting people to comply with them, and getting angry when they are not complied with.
This was one of the reasons he wanted to work at the Constitutional Court, said Willis, whose qualifications include a degree in banking science, one in law and recent studies in
theology.
”I think it has missed the point sometimes,” he said.
He was not saying the court had done too much or too little, but ”I am talking about orders that are not practically implementable”.
There were orders that he would not have put his name to, he said.
He cited the 2000 Grootboom case, which many described as a landmark case in terms of the government providing adequate housing.
Grootboom was about to be evicted from a sports ground in Wallacedene, Cape Town, with several hundred other people.
Their case went all the way to the Constitutional Court, which ruled that they could not be evicted until the government had provided a decent housing alternative for them.
”Mrs Grootboom died without a house despite the fact that many people said what a great decision it was,” Willis said. Grootboom died earlier this year. She was living in a shack at the time.
He said there was ”not even one house” built.
”And I don’t want to hurt your feelings chief justice,” he told Chief Justice Pius Langa, who heads the Constitutional Court.
After a few unrelated questions from the commissioners, Langa returned to the subject, asking: ”What would you have done with Grootboom?”
Willis replied that he was not at the court at the time, so he did not see the papers. However, he added: ”I would have asked what the government could do.”
He was not made to answer questions on his dissenting judgement on whether fellow applicant Cape Judge President John Hlophe’s complaint and counter-complaint at the JSC should go ahead or not.
Willis ruled that it should, but two other judges set the earlier proceedings aside.
He has also ruled that the JSC proceedings relating to Hlophe should be open to the media. — Sapa