Sexism, political bias, disrespect: when will the JSC learn?

Because of the judiciary’s position as a pillar of our democracy, the choice of the country’s chief justice is a serious matter. It follows that the selection process must be seen to be beyond reproach and engenders public trust. The task of ensuring that this happens falls to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), which conducts the relevant interviews with candidates. In this week’s proceedings for choosing the next chief justice, the JSC did not exactly cover itself in glory.

The session with judge Mandisa Maya dwelt inordinately on her gender, while her male fellow candidates were spared this kind of harassment.

Seemingly required to justify her very appearance before the commission, she was even asked whether the country was ready for a female chief justice. To which Maya, the president of the Supreme Court of Appeal, justifiably retorted that the question “annoys a lot of women”.

Equally inappropriate was the puerile and sexist “joke” by advocate Dali Mpofu about “spending a night together” with Maya.

The hearing reflected the endemic sexism of South African society, shamefully displayed by those meant to be the torchbearers of equality and justice for all citizens, irrespective of gender.

That apart, this week’s hearings raised other issues the JSC will need to confront. One of which was how to stop commissioners with barely hidden political agendas from abusing the process to further their own sectarian interests when they should be focusing on finding the best candidate to occupy the highest judicial post in the land.

While the principle of civil society participation through representatives on the commission is a laudable one, the JSC should reflect on the value some commissioners actually bring to the process: what skills, knowledge or insights do they have to identify the very best candidates for the highest ranks of the judiciary?

Many will ask why commissioners, who should know better, would violate commission rules by making serious allegations against candidate and Gauteng judge president Dunstan

Mlambo. Citizens will wonder if such conduct betrays ignorance of the rules, or wilful violation both cause for concern.

Lingering questions about the motives or suitability of commissioners can only negatively affect the integrity of the process and the image of the JSC. After a previous debacle at a hearing to choose justices for the Constitutional Court, the JSC should have taken steps to correct failings in the system.

This week’s spectacle suggests the JSC has learnt little from its previous mistakes, when it was forced to rerun interviews to fill two vacancies on the Constitutional Court. On that occasion civil society organisations accused some members of the commission of “aberrant conduct” for the way they dealt with certain of the candidates.

President Cyril Ramaphosa might wish to reflect on the wisdom of his decision to appoint an advisory panel and to open the selection process for a chief justice to public participation. This when it was known that the then incumbent was on long leave and not due to return before retiring.

While transparency and public engagement are essential for democracy, Ramaphosa’s decision worsened an undesirable situation in which the judiciary and the highest court in the land went without permanent leadership for an inordinately long period.

Furthermore, instead of the president making a call that the constitution empowers him to make, the nation was subjected to an often cringeworthy spectacle, amounting to a beauty contest of sorts, that did little to enhance the image of the JSC and its less judicious members.

Hopefully, the relevant parties will have learnt something from the events of the past week for the sake of the judiciary and our nascent democracy.

The JSC should reflect on the value some commissioners actually bring to the process