Next week the Judicial Service Commission will convene to nominate five applicants for consideration by the president for two vacancies at the Constitutional Court. For the record, the JSC is required to nominate three more candidates than the number of vacancies.
Given this information, it is regrettable that so little public analysis of the six nominees for the highest judicial office in South Africa has taken place. Between the ineptitude of the media and the lack of courage or apathy of the academy, the public will have no real idea as to who is being considered for positions that are critical to the future of constitutional democracy in this country.
To fulfil this role, it is to be hoped, indeed expected, of the JSC that it engage meaningfully with the approach of nominees to the Constitution and its value system, the records of nominees and their expertise to meet the needs of the highest court. To be clear, the fact that a nominee is a sitting judge does not on its own qualify her or him automatically to be a member of the highest court of the country.
What is the nominee’s conception of separation of powers? This is not only about a justifiable definition, but more about the approach that a nominee adopts to the vexed question of where law ends and politics begins.
What is the record of the nominee in respect of delivering judgments within the time parameters as set by the Office of the Chief Justice?
The bigger question is how does the ConCourtSA which is supposed to uphold the rights of the people,justify its excessive costs? How many citizens can afford the million required to approach the court for redress? If it wasnt for large entities no citizens rights can be adressed