DIANNE HAWKER
THE letter Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo wrote to President Jacob Zuma has almost achieved urban legend status in the legal fraternity, with debates raging last week over its wording and the perceptions it may create.
Last week requests for comment on the letter were met by the retort: “I’ve heard about the letter, but I haven’t seen it.”
The Sunday Independent understands that much of the debate is centred on the fact that Justice Ngcobo chose to respond to Zuma’s request by listing reasons for accepting the term extension. Others have questioned the implications for judicial independence.
The letter, dated June 2, forms part of court papers in the Constitutional Court challenge to Justice Ngcobo’s term extension which was argued last week.
In it, the chief justice said he had carefully considered the request and listed six reasons why he felt his continued service would best serve the judiciary.
University of Cape Town constitutional law professor Pierre de Vos said that while there was nothing unconstitutional about the letter because it was written in response to a letter from Zuma, the wording of Justice Ngcobo’s letter may be perceived as unwise.
Wits University constitutional law professor Cathi Albertyn said the letter “does unduly personalise the extension – suggesting that ‘doing a good job’ in the view of the president is a criterion for extension”.
Among the reasons listed by Justice Ngcobo is the creation of the office of the chief justice, for which he gives a two-year time frame. He anticipates that the process of establishing the Constitutional Court as the “apex court” “must still be piloted through Parliament and subsequent implementations would have to occur over five years”.
Justice Ngcobo also said consultation and negotiation with Justice Minister Jeff Radebe on the Judicial Code of Conduct and regulations for the register of judges’ interests were at an early stage and there would only be “substantial development to improve judicial accountability” over the next five years.
He therefore agreed with Zuma that a five-year term was appropriate to place the independence of the judiciary, judicial independent and access to justice on a sound footing, and for this continuity in leadership was vital.