Mogoeng gets 10 days to issue apology

Asked about relations between South Africa and Israel during an online webinar hosted by The Jerusalem Post last year, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng said he – like any other citizen – was entitled to criticise his country’s policies “or even suggest that change is necessary”.

But that’s not what the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) has found.

This week, it found Mogoeng had breached the Code of Judicial Conduct by becoming involved in political controversy at the webinar, as well as at a subsequent prayer meeting, where he refused to apologise for his contentious comments. It gave him 10 days to issue an unconditional apology.

“Whether we like it or not, the [chief justice] is not like any other citizen of South Africa,” Judge Phineas Mojapelo, who penned the JCC’s 67-page ruling, said.

“He is the head of the judiciary and is subject to the restraints of that office, including the ethical rules which govern the conduct of each and every judge.

“He cannot cease to be chief justice and be like any other citizen for as long as he is in office. That is a comfort he left behind when he accepted the office which he now holds.

“He may wish to criticise the policies of the executive and legislative arms of the state, but he cannot do so publicly without raising controversy, that is, involving himself and his office in political controversy.”

During the webinar, the chief justice was asked to comment on the diplomatic relationship between South Africa and Israel, and whether he agreed with SA’s foreign policy in relation to the other.

His remarks drew sharp criticism and prompted complaints from three local organisations: Africa4Palestine, SA Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Coalition and the Women’s Cultural Group.

In his defence, the chief justice suggested the ban on judges becoming involved in political controversy as contained in the code, should be read as a ban on doing so “on home ground” and that “policy must not be conflated with politics, even if it touches on political issues”.

The JCC disagreed.

“Even though a particular policy of the South African government may seem removed from the local environment, it remains subject to the constitution and may be challenged in South African courts,” Mojapelo said,

“It remains a terrain of debate and disputation of local political parties for as long as it is the policy of the government of South Africa. The restricted interpretation is therefore neither textually nor constitutionally justifiable”.

The office of the chief justice has not commented.