7 October 2025 | 08:16 CAT
3-minute read

Image: SowetanLive

In a public intervention on Sunday, three prominent civil society organisations – Freedom Under Law, Defend Our Democracy, and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC) – jointly called for Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema to be removed from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), arguing that his recent criminal conviction and appellate intentions render him unfit for a seat on the body tasked with appointing the country’s judges.

The JSC holds a pivotal role in South Africa’s constitutional democracy: it compiles the shortlist of candidates for judicial appointments — including for the Constitutional Court — and the president cannot override its recommendations. In effect, the JSC is the gatekeeper of judicial integrity and independence, making the fitness of its members essential to public confidence in the courts.

In an interview on Radio Islam International, Chris Oxtoby, a research lawyer with Freedom Under Law, explained why Malema’s continued involvement poses a grave conflict and threatens the legitimacy of the JSC.

According to Oxtoby, Malema has signalled that he intends to appeal both his firearms conviction and an earlier hate-speech judgment — and were he to remain on the JSC while such appeals linger, a “serious conflict of interest” arises. He argued that serving as a judge-selector while simultaneously contesting charges in court presents an untenable overlap of roles.

He cautioned that in the period while appeals might drag on — potentially years — Malema sitting on the body that appoints judges would create serious perception issues.

He further stressed that remarks made by Malema in the wake of his conviction, where he publicly implied that the magistrate had acted on racist motivations, were deeply problematic.

“The EFF statement made associated the judiciary with … being … part of a broader racist conspiracy.”

Oxtoby emphasised that such public statements, which tie the judiciary to a conspiratorial racial bias, are fundamentally incompatible with someone who would be expected to participate in objective selection of judges.

He also laid out possible recourse.

“We would hope that if he doesn’t voluntarily step down, that Parliament … would take action.”

He noted that because Malema occupies his JSC seat as a nominee of Parliament, it falls within Parliament’s authority to remove him — and urged legislators to consider that path if Malema refuses to resign.

Finally, Oxtoby acknowledged that if Parliament fails to act, civil society might turn to courts, given existing jurisprudence.

“There is … the court decision … that … someone must be fit and proper to sit on the JSC.”

He declined to commit on behalf of the signatory organisations whether they would litigate that question.

The joint statement by Freedom Under Law and its partners came in response to Malema’s conviction on 1 October 2025 for the unlawful possession and discharge of a firearm in a public place — an incident dating back to 2018.  While sentencing is scheduled for January 2026, the verdict has already triggered calls for removal from the JSC by linking the ruling to unfitness for judicial oversight.

In parallel, earlier this year, Malema was found by the Equality Court to have made remarks amounting to hate speech, and in May, the High Court upheld a parliamentary finding that he breached the Code of Ethics in a JSC interview by injecting personal political interests into the process.  Civil society groups argue that these repeated adverse findings make it untenable for Malema to serve in a body charged with safeguarding judicial independence.

Listen to the full interview on Sabaahul Muslim with Moulana Junaid Kharsany.