A CHANCE TO STEADY FAITH IN JUDICIARY

CHIEF Justice Raymond Zondo’s first test in ridding the judiciary of the perception of being captured will start with getting to the bottom of claims by an activist.

The activist apparently knew the outcome of a case involving the public protector even before the Constitutional Court had pronounced on it.

Ismail Abramjee, who described himself as a legal commentator, reportedly informed Andrew Breitenbach, a member of the legal council for Parliament, via an SMS, that he “had it on very good authority” that Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s Constitutional Court rescission case was going to be dismissed.

This was before Mkhwebane’s interdict case was postponed in the Western Cape High Court.

After being quizzed about the origins of this information, Abramjee was quick to deny that being in possession of it was a case of judicial capture, claiming that it came from media reports and his own analysis, not inside sources.

He has not specifically said which media reports contained the outcome, and has fallen short in explaining what “very good authority” implies in this case.

While lawyers representing the public protector have rightly demanded answers from the Constitutional Court, Justice Zondo confirmed that the matter was receiving attention and that the public would be informed of the outcome of the investigations.

That is commendable and, hopefully, it won’t take months to finalise the probe. Mkhwebane has been at the receiving end of criticism from some Constitutional Court judges over her numerous reports, with some of the judgments having played a huge role in the establishment of impeachment proceedings against her.

Claims of judicial capture cannot be wished away until judges, especially in the Constitutional Court, demonstrate a willingness to dispel the perceptions with facts.

That is why the investigation involving the text presents an ideal opportunity to show South Africans that they can have faith in the judiciary.

Anything else may lead to the widening of the trust deficit between citizens and those entrusted to protect the Constitution.