Faizel Patel – 08/07/2020

(Twitter: @FaizelPatel143)

Photo: Joy News

The Director of human rights organization Africa4Palestine has lodged an official complaint with the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) against Chief Justice, Mogoeng Mogoeng. 

The Chief Justice has come under severe criticism following his remarks during a webinar with The Jerusalem  newspaper, where he lamented the South African government’s policy regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

With many orgnisations and political parties including the Jamiatul Ulama South Africa, the ANC and the EFF calling for him to retract his comments, the Chief Justice, in a prayer meeting organised by Healing The Nation of Africa Campaign said “even if fifty million people can march every day for the next ten years for me to retract and apologise for what I said, I will not do it.”

In the complaint to the JSC, Africa4Palestine’s Muhammed Moosa Desai says the organisation believes that the Chief Justice has committed wilful or grossly negligent breaches of the judicial code of conduct.

Desai also says that the Chief Justice became involved in political controversy or activity and he failed to recuse himself from a pending case.

Consequently Desai alleges a reasonable suspicion of bias against one of the parties in a pending case and that the Chief Justice involved himself in extrajudicial activities, in circumstances where it was not appropriate to do so.

The complaint also suggests that the Chief Justice displayed grossly negligent conduct that is incompatible and unbecoming of the holding of judicial office including conduct that is prejudicial to the impartiality of the courts.

Desai makes the point that the Chief Justice is the public face of the Judiciary and if the public have cause to lose confidence in his impartiality, then this undermines their confidence in the judiciary as whole.

Desai says if the JSC regards the conduct of the Chief Justice as improper as submitted in the complaint, then the committee must send an unequivocal message both to other judges and the public that such conduct is unacceptable.