Complaint to JSC about judge’s ‘rude’ view of City Power

THE SOCIETY for the Protection of Our Constitution has laid a formal complaint against Judge Kathy Satchwell for what it describes as her “discourteous, undignified, racist, sexist and discriminatory” attack on the City of Johannesburg.

Judge Satchwell, speaking in her South Gauteng High Court chambers, called the city and its power utility ”idiots” and accused them of “f***ing up” for their reluctance to reveal information about a R800million solar geyser deal.

The society, in its complaint to the Judicial Services Commission, said Judge Satchwell had contravened the guidelines for judges set out in Judicial Ethics in South Africa.

It said: “In conducting judicial proceedings, judges should themselves avoid and, where necessary, disassociate themselves from comments or conduct by any person subject to their control which are racist, sexist or otherwise manifest discrimination in violation of the equality guaranteed by the constitution.

“In court and in chambers judges should also always act courteously and respect the dignity of all who have business there.”

In the Promotion of Access to Information case brought by Numsa, the metal workers’ union, against City Power, the judge, referring to the utility’s refusal to hand over documents relating to the contract on solar geyser heaters, accused its officials of “covering up fraud and corruption”.

“Some person” in City Power, she said, was “lazy, covering up, hiding things and idiots and the like”. The “knowledge of such things comes to one like a dagger in the night”.

City Power applied for the judge to recuse herself, with its lawyers saying: “The learned judge stated that the city… only uses young, incompetent black attor neys or little grey, old white men sucking up to the black people in the city.”

In papers, the lawyers argued that the judge was “biased”. They noted that she had ordered that legal costs be paid by the utility officials responsible for the litigation out of their own pockets and not by ratepayers.

The lawyers said Judge Satchwell had used “profanities” against the utility’s attorneys by calling them “idiots” and remarking that someone had “f***ed up”.

City Power said that the judge had suggested that these attor neys had been used to cover up fraud and corruption.

“The learned judge stated that the city believes that it is a tail wagging the dog and that, ‘I should decide whether or not I am going to allow this’.”

The utility’s lawyers said this was an indication of bias because the judge had not heard the merits of the case.

In refusing the application for her recusal, Judge Satchwell said City Power had people “who don’t know how to do their job”.

“That sounds like incompetence – so my ‘bias’ remains.”

Judge Satchwell added that the profanities she was accused of using “would worry my mother, but not my father”.

The Society for the Protection of our Constitution said the judge’s comments had brought the judiciary into disrepute. Her comments had been “rude and offensive”.

“Judge Satchwell must be investigated for gross misconduct that may result in her being sanctioned appropriately.”