Rights group clarifies its complaint on chief justice
The complaint over chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng’s comments on the Israeli-Palestinian situation was not about attacking his freedom of religion, it was about him expressing his political views, human rights organisation Africa4Palestine says.
“It is purely about him expressing a political view — one which is controversial and impairs confidence in his impartiality in a dispute pending before him,” Muhammed Desai, director of the human rights organisation, said in a reply to Mogoeng’s submission to the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) judicial conduct committee this week.
Mogoeng said in response to the initial complaint that his comments, made in a webinar hosted by the Jersusalem Post, were taken out of context and were being used against him to justify claims that his conduct was unbecoming and deserved punishment.
He had said that judges’ views should be known and that “mature democracies don’t penalise judges or disqualify candidates from appointability for holding strong views on
Christianity or any religion”. Africa4Palestine laid a complaint at the JSC, arguing that Mogoeng had breached the judicial code of conduct by making comments that were seen as contradicting SA’s foreign policy on one of the most controversial issues in global politics.
The code provides that judges may not be involved in political controversy or activities unless it is necessary for the discharge of judicial office.
Desai said the majority of Mogoeng’s response lies in him defending his freedom of religion, which the Constitutional Court justice accuses the organisation of violating, but this argument was “wholly misplaced”.
“Nowhere in the complaint is there any criticism of Mogoeng CJ’s religious beliefs. Nevertheless he characterises it as an anti-Christian complaint and unleashes a torrent of ad hominem attacks on Africa4Palestine,” Desai said.
The organisation listed 20 examples of relevant comments in the chief justice’s response to back up this assertion.
“As Africa4Palestine we were seriously shocked by the acidity and sheer volume of these attacks on us, our motives and our commitment to human rights. They are unbecoming of someone occupying the office of the chief justice,” Desai said.
He said Africa4Palestine harboured no ill will or intolerance towards Christianity or Christians, adding that Christian leaders and organisations had also criticised Mogoeng over his comments.
Desai said it was untenable for the chief justice to say the organisation’s complaint was driven by anti-Christian sentiment. It was in no way aimed at suppressing his freedom of religion.
Desai said that in any event, the complaint was not about religion. It lay in the comments that SA’s diplomatic posture on Israel was wrong, as well as the sentiment conveyed by Mogoeng that disinvestment, a popular mechanism to put pressure on a government, was wrong. Desai said those comments did not come from the Bible. “To say that it is wrong to disinvest from Israel or to confront Israel diplomatically is therefore not the expression of a religious view, but a political view,” Desai said.
Africa4Palestine has also argued that Mogoeng should recuse himself from the Bongani Masuku case in which the Constitutional Court has reserved judgment. The case is about hate speech in the context of using the word Zionist in an antiSemitic way.
Mogoeng said in his response to the initial complaint the issue was a red herring, and his speech in the webinar was about love of all people, and not one of hate, which was the subject matter of the case.
Desai said it did not matter whether Mogoeng was biased in the case, it only mattered whether in the public’s perception there was a reasonable suspicion of bias. He said that this perception, based on Mogoeng’s comments, was reasonable, as he spoke on the very subject matter of Masuku’s comments which are now before the court.
Africa4Palestine reiterated that Mogoeng should recuse himself from the case, as well as its complaint.
IT IS PURELY ABOUT HIM EXPRESSING A POLITICAL VIEW _ ONE WHICH IS CONTROVERSIAL AND IMPAIRS CONFIDENCE IN HIS IMPARTIALITY...