Malema’s attacks imperil judicial independence
South Africa’s constitution enshrines the independence of the judiciary as a cornerstone of our democracy.
Section 165 clearly states that the courts are independent and subject only to the constitution and the law and that no person or organ of state may interfere with their functioning.
Yet repeated public attacks on the judiciary by EFF leader Julius Malema threaten this principle (“Malema’s sentence tests South Africa’s commitment to law and order”, April 23).
Malema’s rhetoric, often aimed at undermining judges and court decisions, is more than mere political posturing. It erodes public confidence in the impartiality and authority of our courts.
Trust in the judiciary is not a luxury — it is essential for a functioning democracy. Citizens must believe courts are fair arbiters of the law, free from political intimidation or influence. By consistently questioning judicial decisions and casting aspersions on judges’ motives, Malema diminishes this trust.
This brings into sharp focus his suitability or lack thereof to serve on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), which is tasked with appointing and disciplining judges, safeguarding the judiciary’s independence, and ensuring that only individuals of integrity serve on the bench.
Placing someone found guilty of discharging a firearm — who consistently and openly denigrates the judiciary — in a position of influence over judicial appointments is fundamentally at odds with the JSC’s purpose.
A JSC member must respect judicial independence and uphold the rule of law. Public attacks on judges, especially from someone in a position to influence judicial appointments, signal a disregard for these constitutional principles.
In a democratic society, accountability and criticism are essential, but they must be conducted responsibly and within the bounds of the law. Persistent, baseless attacks on the judiciary are not constructive; they threaten the very foundations of our constitutional democracy.
Malema’s behaviour makes him unsuitable for the JSC, and allowing him to remain a member undermines judicial independence and the trust South Africans place in their courts.
Thulani Dasa
Khayelitsha
Minimum qualifications could curb cadre deployment
Sarah Meny-Gibert and Ryan Brunette’s article, “The death of cadre deployment is grossly exaggerated — but can still happen” (May 19), refers.
Introducing minimum qualifications (a relevant degree or postgraduate qualification) and experience (10 years in the sector, perhaps, and five years in a management role) for senior positions would rule out the egregious cases of cadre deployment that do the most harm.
Tests of competence should also be part of the process, and they could include things such as discussing a case study, writing a two-minute speech on a relevant topic, or interpreting and writing a review of a set of financials.
We need all senior appointments in education to have been teachers, all those in the army to have been soldiers, all those in the police to have been policemen or women, and all those in health to have been medical staff or administrators, and for them to be experienced.
Appointments will be political, but we need them to be competent. At the moment, being politically connected is sufficient. This needs to change.
Greg Becker
Via Business Day online
DA faces conumdrum over Ramaphosa
Wayne Alexander’s article, “The GNU’s Ramaphosa problem — stability cannot mean silence” (May 19), refers.
We can’t afford this kind of pearl clutching. The DA has to decide which is the least bad alternative, not what is morally pure.
President Cyril Ramaphosa is clearly guilty of something since he hasn’t been able to come up with any plausible explanation for the odd goings-on at Phala Phala. But that doesn’t mean the government has to be handed over to a worse bunch of crooks on the altar of doing the right thing.
Protection may come at a negotiated price.
Sydney Kaye
Via Business Day online
Faux Jews suffer from identity conflict
Adam Mendelsohn’s excellent article, “Lewis in Wonderland” (May 20), refers.
The “faux Jews” he mentions are probably subject to a variety of psychological maladies. One that comes to mind is the well-known “identity conflict”, which has afflicted diaspora Jews over centuries.
It encompasses longing for acceptance by others, embarrassment about visibly identifying as a Jew, and fear of rejection.
It reaches the height of absurdity when those who are critical of Israel’s actions proclaim: “Not in my name.” (On this note, David Lewis managed to achieve unimagined banality in his article.)
For heaven’s sake, what degree of delusion and hubris is required to think that anything done by Israel is in “their name”?
Errol Price
Via Business Day online
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
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.