Let merit be the only measure of a person’s fitness to judge
CONTROVERSY concerning the appointment of judges would seem to be neglecting the important question of the purpose for which judges are appointed, “When a judge courts controversy” (August 4). They are appointed, as all civil servants are, to provide a service. They are not, or should not, be appointed on any ground of personal entitlement, however hard their lot may have been in the past.
I have white skin and blue eyes, yet when my life depends on the skill of another person, I am not in the least concerned that the person should resemble me in appearance, but rather that he should be highly skilled in his trade or profession. When I fly, I simply want the aircraft in which I am flying to have been designed and tested by the most highly skilled engineers available, maintained by the most highly skilled mechanics available, flown by the most highly skilled pilots available and guided by the most highly skilled flight controllers available. Similar considerations would apply were I to have to undergo surgery or be involved in litigation.
Judges are endowed with enormous powers to make or break the lives of their fellow humans. They are granted those powers not in their own interests, but in the interests of the litigants who are to appear before them. If the colour of a potential judge’s skin (or any other consideration, such as his political leanings) is allowed to override the greater forensic skills of another candidate, those, of whatsoever race, who subsequently appear before that judge will pay the penalty of having their cases less competently decided than it would have been had the vacancy been filled on the criterion of merit alone.
By ignoring this essential fact, the chief justice, it is respectfully submitted, has shown himself unfit for the high office he holds. — Geoffrey Malcolm Wittenberg, Muizenberg