Chief justice enters fray over interpreting in Pistorius trial

THE Oscar Pistorius trial has shown that courtroom translations are not for the faint-hearted. In a country with 11 official languages and where courts often operate in either English or Afrikaans, interpreters may struggle or at times take liberties when there is no matching word.

This week, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng confirmed his doubts about the state of interpreting services and even hinted at the possibility of roping in judges to help with training.

A series of embarrassing blunders and outrage on social networking sites during the Pistorius trial have triggered a shake-up of court interpreting services.

A senior official of the Department of Justice, Mahomed Dawood, met this week with Professor Annemarie Beukes and Dr Eleanor Cornelius, both academics at the University of Johannesburg, after the latter had made scathing comments about the poor standard of interpreting in the Pistorius trial.

South African Translators’ In- stitute chairman Johan Blaauw said Dawood told the academics the department had established an in-house committee to consult various interested parties on how to improve court interpreting.

Justice spokesman Mthunzi Mhaga confirmed that officials from the Regional Court President and Chief Magistrate’s Forum, National Prosecuting Authority and the office of the chief justice had been mandated to review the performance of interpreters.

Mogoeng said: “We still have very good court interpreters, but there are quite a number who are not quite up to scratch and you should never have an interpreter whose performance is suspect.”

Mogoeng, who did not wish to comment on the performance of the gum-chewing interpreter in the Paralympian’s trial, said: “I was an interpreter for a while, over and above having been a prosecutor, advocate and trial judge, so most of us have a sense of what it takes to be a good interpreter.

“Ideally, the judiciary should take over the responsibility relating to interpreters.”

Mhaga said the department was fully satisfied with the “resource” who had been interpreting in the Pistorius trial.

Professor Judith Inggs, head of the department of translation and interpreting studies at the University of the Witwatersrand, said: “I have heard — and I believe — that a lot of miscarriages of justice have been put down to inadequate interpreting skills on the part of court interpreters.”

Inggs said the minimum qualification to become an interpreter, currently set at matric, was too low.

She said the accent of the interpreter in the Pistorius trial, although jarring , was “perfectly legitimate”.

Hazel Olifant, principal interpreter of the Pietermaritzburg regional and district courts, said the main challenge faced by interpreters was explaining certain terms used in court.

“Interpreters sometimes have difficulties translating from Zulu to English, especially when there is no English equivalent to what has been said,” said Olifant.