President Cyril Ramaphosa faces legal action to increase magistrates’ salaries by 34%, forcing him into the awkward position of balancing judicial independence against the risk of triggering hikes across the entire public office payroll.
In court papers filed at the high court in Johannesburg, the Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa (Armsa) argues that magistrates’ workloads and responsibilities have ballooned since 2008, yet their pay, capped at R1.16m a year, lags behind last October’s recommendation by the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers.
If the court, which is due to hear the case on Tuesday, compels Ramaphosa to implement the proposed increases — boosting entry-level magistrate salaries to R1.56m — mounting follow-on hikes for mayors, MPs and judges could swell an already strained R740bn wage bill, a wild card in the Treasury’s efforts to stabilise SA’s finances.
Armsa, set up in the mid-1990s to provide a unified voice for the lower-court judiciary, paints the case as a defence of judicial independence.
“Adequate remuneration that is reflective of magistrates’ responsibilities in the law is a crucial aspect of judicial independence. It is a constitutional imperative that for too long has been ignored,” Hein Rudolf, chair of Armsa’s salaries committee, says in court papers.
The commission recommended that magistrates now earning R1,161,674 annually be paid R1,561,876 — a 34% increase. It recommended increases for senior magistrates earning R1,256,919 to R1,735,417, regional magistrates from R1,516,364 to R1,908,959, and regional court presidents from R1,689,981 to R2,082,501.
The report made several recommendations for public office bearers, but the president has not implemented the changes, citing financial implications for the National Treasury.
Ramaphosa has had the review report for almost 10 months. Rudolf argues the president failed to make a determination on the report within a reasonable legal time frame and “breached a written undertaking to make a determination by June 21 2025”.
By law, the president must weigh the pay panel’s recommendations and announce his decision in a notice before parliament votes to approve the increases.
The president chalked up two lean raises — a 3% boost in the 2023/24 financial year and 4.7% for 2024/25.
However, Rudolf insists the hikes did not address the responsibilities of magistrates considered in the commission’s report.
“The recommendations need to be implemented without further delay,” he says. “It is quite plain from the factual background that the current remuneration of magistrates simply does not reflect their expanded roles, responsibilities and duties in law. Magistrates are thus not properly remunerated for their important services to the public and the state in the administration of justice.”
‘Extreme importance’
Ramaphosa, who filed his opposing court papers late on Monday, describes the case to be of “extreme importance”.
He argues the review report differs from annual salary increase recommendations and proposes systematic changes.
“Its recommendations will have [a] far-reaching and long-term impact on the fiscus,” he says.
Ramaphosa says he consulted with finance minister Enoch Godongwana on the commission’s report, arguing that the report encompasses more than remuneration and extends to all benefits, such as pensions and medical aid.
“It is quite impossible to deal with the recommendations piecemeal. I could not,even if there were no concerns affecting magistrates (and there are), make a recommendation for them to the exclusion of all other public office bearers.”
He denies dragging his feet, noting that he referred the report back to the commission on July 23, just a week after the association launched its legal challenge.
“The review affects a number of other office bearers, and those of the magistrates extend beyond the inflationary adjustments,” he says.
Though the president concedes he has to consider the recommendation within a reasonable time, he argues there is no time frame in law indicating when recommendations must be implemented.
The association also accused parliament of failing to hold the president accountable, adding that “should the president fail to act expeditiously, parliament has an obligation to ensure that he does so, to secure that magistrates are properly and appropriately remunerated for their services to the state”.
National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza, who also opposes the application, denies the allegations that the legislature slept on the job. “The president must first consider the independent commission’s recommendation and then determine an appropriate remuneration,” Didiza says.
In this case, the report is still on the president’s desk and not before parliament.
“Whether parliament has discharged its statutory functions timeously, therefore, must be measured from the date on which the president refers his draft determination to the speaker and chair [of the National Council of Provinces].”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.