EXCLUSIVE: Hands off the judiciary says Mogoeng, addressing fake CR17 ‘list’

Allegations of corruption that are not evidence-based are harming the reputation of our judges, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng said yesterday.

After challenging the country to bring forward evidence of judicial malfeasance following the widely circulated manufactured “list” of judges who had allegedly benefited from President Cyril Ramaphosa’s campaign funds, only two people had come forward. However, their claims were less about corruption than self-interest in their pending matters, Mogoeng said.

“I’m more concerned about public confidence in the judiciary. If people keep on making allegations of corruption against the judiciary, not everybody gives themselves time to investigate whether there is some truth behind these allegations,” he continued.

“The old propaganda strategy which was started by Adolf Hitler is if you repeat a lie as many times as possible, after a while people will accept it as truth. Why? Because 87% of the population never interrogate the truthfulness of allegations made.

“That’s my concern. We are harming the reputation of the judiciary, we are harming public confidence in the judiciary and, without public confidence, we really can’t make the kind of impact our democracy requires of us.”

Outside the building, EFF leader Julius Malema – who also happens to currently be on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) board – addressed more questions from media on the VBS saga after the JSC’s first meeting since July, following Malema’s accusation that the judiciary was on the verge of being captured.

At the JSC meeting yesterday, the question of long-outstanding matters – involving Judge President Hlophe as well as judges Motata, Preller, Mavundla, Webster, and Phoswa – and the JSC’s apparent inability to deal with these misconduct cases, arose.

“We would do well, even as members of the public, to inform ourselves. You have to criticise a person for failing to do what was possible for them to do,” Mogoeng said.

“Now, these cases, including those involving Preller and Mavundla, were not finalised within a reasonable time, unlike many others, because there was litigation.

“Some have suggested when it is judges who are unhappy with a particular statute which governs anything relating to the disciplinary process, they are not allowed to go to a court of law to challenge what they are unhappy with. But where is it written?”

Animated, Mogoeng bounced upright in his chair and stressed how the Constitution guaranteed everybody, “even judges”, the right of access to the courts.

“I don’t have the power, the Judicial Service Commission doesn’t have the power, to say to a judge because you are a judge, you are not allowed to challenge this decision, even if the Constitution allows you to,” said Mogoeng.

“What could I have done, what could the JSC have done to stop those who wanted to litigate from litigating? There was nothing we could have done. So to blame us for not having done what the Constitution prevented us from doing is really an ill-informed criticism.”

Rather than the media just focusing on the controversies, there were things Mogoeng felt would be more educational for people to know.

“What is the judiciary, how is it supposed to function, and how do you differentiate it from the ministry of justice? Those are some of the things I feel would be more educative. Unfortunately people choose to ask questions that are maybe sensational and therefore attract more listeners or [a greater] readership,” Mogoeng said.

One of the things not many may know about is the South African Judicial Education Institute, under which judges both appointed and aspiring have been trained.

It was started by Mogoeng in 2012 with him as the council chair, and Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo as head of the executive committee.

Other work the Office of the Chief Justice was involved in saw it working to ensure traditional leaders worked within the Constitution.

“Customary law was not originally in line with the Bill of Rights, and we have taken it upon ourselves as the judiciary to guide traditional leaders as to what is it that is constitutionally impermissible in the execution of their judicial roles, and what restructuring and reorientation is required.”

Mogoeng’s office was also involved in helping other countries, such as Botswana and Namibia, so they could “dispense justice in a manner that is acceptable.”

The chief justice noted the introduction of “norms and standards” for case management at the OCJ, embarking on the modernisation of courts, and the well-functioning administrative arm of the judiciary, which he said was important to demonstrate the possibility of clean governance.

“This is one of the best-performing government departments. It’s under the leadership of the judiciary. That’s why it has clean audits. That’s why it even received an award.”

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