Judicial accountability is healthy for democracy

THE Umkhonto we Sizwe Party (MKP) argues that: “Members of Parliament are required to declare their assets; therefore, the same standards should apply to judges, who wield immense constitutional power and influence. Judges must be held to a higher standard of scrutiny and accountability. South Africa cannot afford to have a judiciary shielded from the same transparency expected of other arms of state.”

- PROFESSOR SIPHO SEEPE

The self-appointed guardians of our democracy would have none of it.

The judiciary is a no-go area. After all, conventional wisdom dictates that judges are paragons of virtue. They cannot be compared to corruption-prone politicians and public officials.

Counterposing MKP’s call is an argument that says: “Judges are already subject to the most stringent asset and income declarations of all public office bearers.”

Also, subjecting judges to life-style audits would imply suspicion of corruption. If stringent processes for probing judicial integrity are in place, MKP’s call should not pose a problem. A case of suspicion has been made.

According to the 2018 Afrobarometer survey, a publication of the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation, 32% of South Africans suspect that judges are involved in corruption. In 2002, the level of mistrust was 15%.

Chief Justice Mandisa Maya is on record that there are issues that require urgent attention including “the report of the 2021 Afrobarometer survey that the public’s trust in the judiciary has declined ...loss of confidence in the judiciary does not augur well for the rule of law and our democracy”.

She concluded that “the judiciary itself needs to do an introspection and check if we are to blame for this change of attitude towards the institution”.

Delivering the Nelson Mandela Lecture, former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng raised a similar concern.

“There is an attempt to capture the judiciary ... any captured member of the judiciary will simply be told or will know in advance, when so and so and so and so are involved, we'd better know your place. Or when certain issues are involved, well, the decision is known in advance.”