Sack rude, gambling chief magistrate, rules inquiry

● Former Kempton Park chief magistrate Judith van Schalkwyk, who gambled when she should have been in court and regularly ordered a junior magistrate to “roll” her hair, must be dismissed, a Magistrate’s Commission inquiry has ruled.

She was also found guilty of “being rude and humiliating, and belittling” to other judicial officials, telling one “his decision sucked”, writing on a charge sheet about another, “have you finally lost your marbles”, and saying to another, “If I could throw you through the wall …”.

Some of her colleagues at the court came to her defence, denying that her chambers were doubling as her hair salon, and saying that though she could be strident, she was never rude.

But regional court magistrate Anand Maharaj, who presided over the disciplinary hearing last week, said there was corroboration for some of the evidence given by the

2013 The year former Kempton Park chief magistrate Judith van Schalkwyk was suspended on full pay. Four years later her pay was stopped

13 Number of charges on which the commission found her guilty

main witness, then acting magistrate Veronica da Silva, and other witnesses.

Van Schalkwyk, 59, was suspended in 2013 on full pay. The hearing was stalled while she challenged certain regulations in first the high court, and then the Supreme Court of Appeal, where she lost her case.

Her pay was stopped in December 2017 and the hearing finally got under way in October 2018. She pleaded not guilty to 24 charges.

Maharaj found her guilty on 13 charges, including improper use of a state vehicle, being rude to colleagues and to the chief justice “in a derogatory e-mail”, gambling during office hours, ordering Da Silva to leave court to do her hair, ordering Da Silva to assist her with organising and finding sponsors and speakers for an International Association of Judges conference, requesting a local attorney to give her money to pay for a trip to Washington, not paying for parking at the court and not submitting proper daily returns of court hours.

Maharaj, in his written judgment, summarised the evidence of Da Silva, who said she had known Van Schalkwyk before she was appointed as an acting magistrate in 2009.

Da Silva testified that at times she was called out of court to “roll Van Schalkwyk’s hair”, a process that would take her two to three hours. On some mornings, she did this at Van Schalkwyk’s home, meaning she would only arrive at court after 11am.

She said that at Van Schalkwyk’s request, she would postpone all her court cases to take Van Schalkwyk to Emperors Palace to gamble.

Regarding the judges’ conference, she said Van Schalkwyk had been the chair of the local organising committee. She had instructed Da Silva to draft and amend business plans during court hours.

“She just told me to postpone matters,” Da Silva said. “She had no regard for the parties.”

Other magistrates who testified confirmed that Da Silva was often in Van Schalkwyk’s office, that they were often instructed by Van Schalkwyk to tell Da Silva to adjourn her court, and that Da Silva was often seen “driving her around”.

Others said Da Silva was a troublemaker, and the allegations were all “utter nonsense”. Maharaj found that though she was not an “impressive witness”, some of her evidence was corroborated.

He noted that Van Schalkwyk had not testified at the hearing, instead calling witnesses. “One of the senior magistrates who came to her [Van Schalkwyk’s] defence lacked objectivity,” he said.

Regarding sanctions, Maharaj said the evidence leader had submitted that Van Schalkwyk had not acknowledged responsibility “but portrayed herself as a victim”.

He said utterances she had used seemed to validate the portrayal of her as dictatorial and tyrannical.

He said given the multiplicity of charges and their seriousness, the only sanction suitable was to recommend to the commission that she be removed from office.

Van Schalkwyk did not want to comment on the ruling.

She has two weeks to lodge representations to the commission as to why she should not be dismissed. The commission’s decision has to be ratified by parliament.