By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has concluded the interviews for judicial vacancies across the country on Friday.
A total of four candidates were interviewed for the two positions available within the KZN Division of the High Court.
The Commission, however, resolved to only recommend Professor Mbuzeni Johnson ‘MJ’ Mathenjwa.
The only candidate who was interviewed for the Limpopo Division of the High Court was unsuccessful as the Commission resolved to not recommend him.
In total, the JSC interviewed 34 candidates to fill 20 vacancies across various courts. However, it will only fill 12 vacancies and have left 6 others open.
Meanwhile the Freedom Under Law says it is concerned by the failure of the Judicial Service Commission to fill vacancies at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein.
The JSC interviewed 10 judges during the past week and recommended only two to fill the four spots on the bench of the country’s second-highest court.
The JSC said it would recommend to President Cyril Ramaphosa the names of Judge Fayeeza Kathree-Setiloane and Judge Shane Kgoele.
Meanwhile Freedom Under board chairperson Azhar Cachalia says the JSC’s decision to leave vacancies open, despite being presented with candidates, will further dissuade the best lawyers from applying for judgeships.
“This takes place in a context where many of South Africa’s state institutions have all but collapsed as a result of appointment processes which have been deeply flawed, sometimes even corrupt.
“The South African judiciary, which has typically stood as a bulwark against the most egregious excesses of power, can therefore ill-afford to be denied the undoubted judicial qualities of top jurists at this critical juncture,” he said.
Cachalia added that FUL is troubled by the rejection of one of South Africa’s leading jurists, Judge David Unterhalter.
“We are compelled to comment on the JSC’s failure to recommend the appointment of Judge Unterhalter. Judge Unterhalter commands great respect among judicial colleagues and legal practitioners, both here and internationally.
“Based on the public interview, no circumstances emerged to justify a conclusion that he was not appropriately qualified or fit and proper for appointment. Indeed, commissioners specifically commended him for his technical competence and diligence.
“It is difficult to come to a conclusion other than that irrelevant, extraneous or improper reasons were at play in the JSC’s decision not to recommend an outstanding candidate like Judge Unterhalter for appointment,” he said.
Watch Live in the video below:
Video Courtesy of JRSA.