CHIEF Justice Raymond Zondo and Justice Minister Ronald Lamola may have committed a gross disservice to South Africans in appointing retired justice Zak Yacoob to look at appeals in the Constitutional Court.
The appointment smacks of irregularity no matter how one looks at it. Be it from a political alignment point of view or a judicial decorum point of view, it spells “irregular”.
The Code of Judicial Conduct states, among others, that a judge must not become involved in any political controversy or activity unless it is necessary for the discharge of judicial office or use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.
Justice Yacoob’s history of controversial incidents, including verbal altercations and alleged attempts to influence legal proceedings, raises concerns about his suitability for a role within the highest court of South Africa.
Instances such as his altercation with a journalist and his involvement in Cricket South Africa, where he reportedly threatened a journalist and clashed with the organisation’s acting chief executive, suggest a lack of temperament and professionalism that might not align with the expectations of a judicial role.
Justice Yacoob treated Shamila Surjoo, the former director of KwaZulu-Natal’s Blind & Deaf Society, with contempt, calling her stupid and her lawyer idiotic. Not to mention that he used expletives towards Mathews Phosa, the former premier of Mpumalanga. At the time, Phosa was a member of the ANC national executive committee.
Furthermore, Justice Yacoob’s conflicts and his close associations with political figures, notably Pravin Gordhan, raise questions about potential biases or conflicts of interest.
Judicial appointments, particularly to a prestigious institution such as the Constitutional Court, should be based solely on merit and impartiality, free from perceived political influence or favouritism.
The lack of transparency surrounding Justice Yacoob’s appointment process, including the absence of a public recruitment process and unclear criteria for selection, further undermines confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.
Judicial appointments are normally conducted through transparent and merit-based procedures to ensure the public’s trust in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Additionally, the role assigned to Justice Yacoob within the Constitutional Court, involving advising sitting justices on which appeal cases to dismiss or entertain, raises concerns about the separation of powers and the proper functioning of the judiciary.
Justice Yacoob boldly stated that former president Jacob Zuma would not get a fair hearing from him, and then on Wednesday, Zuma’s private prosecution bid against senior State advocate Billy Downer and journalist Karyn Maughan was dismissed by the Constitutional Court.
This is not to suggest that Justice Yacoob had anything to do with the ruling, but if the shoe fits …
While providing support services to manage the court’s workload may be necessary, retired justices should not be involved in substantive decision-making processes that could influence the outcome of cases.
The responses from Judge Raymond Zondo’s office, while attempting to clarify Justice Yacoob’s role, may not adequately address the concerns. The assertion that Justice Yacoob and other retired justices are providing a support service to manage the court’s workload does not assuage fears about potential interference or bias in the judicial process.
Overall, the controversy surrounding Justice Yacoob’s appointment to the Constitutional Court underscores the importance of transparent and accountable judicial appointment processes, as well as the need to uphold the principles of judicial independence and impartiality.
Without clear guidelines and oversight mechanisms, there is a risk of undermining public trust in the judiciary and the rule of law.