Cameron’s parting shot sends a clear message

Among several of his landmark judgments, Justice Edwin Cameron will be remembered for his ruling in 2017 on new home owners where he said they should not assume responsibility for historical debt.

He found that municipalities had an array of mechanisms which enabled debt recovery in the cause of collecting vital revenue and that they had the legal power to stop any imminent transfers in the case of any unpaid debts.

This brought relief to millions of struggling new home owners who were under financial strain, with municipalities having cut off services due to unpaid bills by previous owners.

Such was the progressive thinking of the legendary and legal genius Cameron – a fighter for the rights of the oppressed – who this week gracefully retired from the Constitutional Court Bench, bringing to an end an illustrious 25-year stint in the judiciary.

In his parting shot before the crowds who attended his send-off, Cameron left a clear message for his colleagues, organs of civil society and the citizenry, when he cautioned: “Tough times lie ahead for those who are committed to democracy, governance under law and to social justice for all people in our country – not the enrichment of the inside elite.”

Appointed by Nelson Mandela to serve in the high court in 1994, Cameron has proven to be a fighter for human rights, who dealt with apartheid with the same vigour he pursued corrupt leaders during democracy, becoming one of the 11 judges that ordered former president Jacob Zuma to repay taxpayers’ money spent to renovate his Nkandla homestead.

Having courageously and openly declared his HIV/Aids status, Cameron has also become the champion of the fight for the rights of those living with the disease.

In their research paper on the transformation and independence of the judiciary, Amy Gordon and David Bruce have placed on record that under apartheid, the judiciary did not enjoy true independence from the executive and legislature, with the government often attempting to stymie what little independent decision-making power judges were able to invoke.

They wrote: “South African history demonstrates the vulnerability of the judiciary to manipulation, while the pretence of independence was maintained. In an attempt to legitimise the political order, the National Party government claimed consistently that the judiciary was independent.

“While formal structural guarantees of independence existed and while at times courts rendered decisions contrary to the wishes of the ruling party, a closer examination of the judiciary’s position, powers and composition, revealed that the judicial system was not truly independent and did not effectively curb abuses of power by the other branches of government.”

But 25 years into democracy, judges have not escaped criticism – sometimes misplaced – by powerful politicians.

Noted Gordon and Bruce: “Recent events have given rise to legitimate concerns about the government’s attitude toward judicial independence and about how to resolve the tensions between independence and other aspects of transformation.”

Despite the challenge of balancing different elements of transformation and despite the ongoing need for judicial reform, say the authors, “the South African judiciary has managed not only to defend but also to effectively employ its constitutionally-guaranteed independence”.

This independence is something we dare not give away by pandering to any whims or wishes of politicians.

Brian Sokutu.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.