Image for illustrative purposes. Picture: iStock
South Africa’s judges are seeking equal treatment in the eyes of the President.
President Cyril Ramaphosa previously submitted a draft notice proposing a different increase percentage for magistrates, something that angered judges.
The National Council of Provinces’ (NCOP) Select Committee on Security and Justice relayed the opinion of the Parliamentary Legal Advisor on 4 September regarding a challenge brought by Justice Alliance of South Africa (JASA).
The draft notice was in relation to remuneration increases for public office bearers for the 2024 and 2025 financial years.
All public office bearers were given a 3% increase for the 2023/24 financial year, with an increase of 2.5% for the 2024/25 period.
ALSO READ: ‘Free’ judges, lack of resources: Hlophe bemoans judicial ‘nightmare’ after budget cuts
However, the President singled out magistrates, granting them a 4.7% increase. JASA has no compliant about the percentage, only that judges have been excluded.
The JASA’s request to review the decision is based on their belief that President Ramaphosa did not take into account how the notice would “erode” the salaries of the judges.
The judges’ salaries fall under the clauses of the Remuneration Act and Judges Conditions Act, with the latter allowing the President to gazette relevant changes.
These changes need to be recommended by the NCOP and National Assembly, and consultations must be held with the Chief Justice as well as the ministers of justice and finance.
JASA argue that the President failed to make the necessary considerations and that this failure was “irrational, unconstitutional and undermined the independence of the judiciary”.
Using Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa vs President of RSA and Others (ARMSA), JASA argue that exclusion of the judges from the increase “constitutes an executive action which is reviewable on the grounds of lawfulness, rationality and inconsistency with the constitution”.
ALSO READ: What’s wrong with our courts
The Economic Freedom Fighters supported the review, with member Nolubabalo Mcinga saying, “There must not be any delays. These judges have taken care of the country. They are assisting us and we are still discussing. I don’t that this is fair”.
In a brief summary of the parliament’s legal opinion, the select committee stated they did not believe the President acted against the constitution.
The legal advisor stated that representations made by JASA proved no legal impediment to the committee’s consideration or approval of the President’s draft.
On the three main claims, the legal advisor suggested there was no grounds that the President’s actions were irrational, unconstitutional or undermining of the independence of the judiciary.
The onus is now on the committee to approve the draft to be sent the NCOP and National Assembly.
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
