What the chief justice said about transformation might upset some people. But it is not constitutionally controversial, says Pierre de Vos.
Cape Town - The unseemly and racially charged row which has erupted after Paul Hoffman laid a complaint against Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng at the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) for remarks the chief justice made about judicial transformation provides a textbook example of the manner in which race often colours our judgment and determines how we view a specific event.
Whenever the matter of racial transformation is raised, most protagonists become blind and deaf to reason, choosing racial solidarity over rational debate and critical reflection.
In his address to Advocates for Transformation, Chief Justice Mogoeng delivered a spirited defence of the JSC, while also arguing for the need to change briefing patterns to help to open up the legal profession to more women and blacks.
He also pointed out – correctly – that “standards” are often invoked by those who oppose transformation in a blatantly racist manner that associates high standards with white men and a lowering of standards with the opening up of the profession to women and black South Africans.
The chief justice did not say anything that many of us have not been saying and writing for ages.
Hoffman, of the Institute of Accountability, took umbrage at these remarks, arguing that the chief justice had brought the judiciary and the high office he holds into disrepute because he had descended into the arena of contestation and controversy in respect of issues pending in the High Court.
But upon closer inspection of the complaint against the chief justice, the real complaint is not that he forcefully (and undiplomatically) spoke about judicial transformation. After all, our judges often speak out about controversial legal issues.
Just two weeks ago I lauded the late Justice Pius Langa for a speech he made in Stellenbosch in favour of “transformative constitutionalism”, a highly controversial and contested concept. No one complained when Langa made this speech, perhaps because it dealt more broadly with transformation and did not directly threaten the interests of the white men who remain the largest financial beneficiaries of the legal profession.
In the past, other judges have been lauded for speaking up about the need to respect the rule of law, for example. As far as I know, no one lodged a complaint with the JSC against a judge for doing so. A senior judge even has his own TV programme in which he quizzes panellists about highly controversial political matters.
Hoffman, as far as I’m aware, has not lodged a complaint about any of these judges with the JSC.
According to Hoffman’s complaint, the remarks of the chief justice are premised on an untenable legal interpretation of section 174(2) of the constitution, a section which requires the JSC to take into account the need for the judiciary to reflect broadly the racial and gender composition of South Africa. According to Hoffman, these remarks conflicted with the provisions of section 9 of the constitution, which proscribes “unfair discrimination against ‘white’ male lawyers”.
This is, of course, uninformed nonsense. Whatever one may personally think of the merits of race-based redress measures, no one with even a modicum of knowledge of the Constitutional Court jurisprudence of section 9 of the constitution will be able to argue with a straight face that robust measures to transform the racial and gender composition of the judiciary in line with section 174 of the constitution (read with section 9, especially section 9(2)) are constitutionally impermissible.
What the chief justice said about the transformation of the judiciary might upset some people. But it is not constitutionally controversial. Only the blind, the dishonest or those who are completely ignorant of the relevant judgments of the Constitutional Court (and of the wealth of academic literature on affirmative action written by traditional liberal scholars like Ronald Dworkin, and by more progressive legal scholars) will claim otherwise.
The principles enunciated by the chief justice are therefore entirely uncontroversial. Of course, whether the JSC in fact always fulfils this constitutional mandate prudently and with the necessary wisdom to ensure the long-term legitimacy of the judiciary is another matter. Reasonable people can differ on this point.
Once we have all accepted that the constitution not only allows, but requires, the JSC to pay regard to race and gender equity when it makes appointments to the Bench, and that the legal profession has a special duty to advance transformation in the profession in order to safeguard the legitimacy of the judiciary, we could begin to have a productive debate about how the JSC should fulfil this mandate, and whether it is doing so in an astute and sensible manner.
By laying a complaint against the chief justice because he forcefully argued in favour of race and gender transformation of the judiciary, Hoffman muddied the waters and made it more difficult to have a real, reasoned, and level-headed discussion about what the JSC is doing right, and what it is doing wrong.
This does not mean that I think the chief justice did himself any favours when he couched his valid concerns in such highly emotive language, indulged in sweeping generalisations and attacked unnamed individuals and groups. Nor was it helpful that he expressed what appear to be anti-democratic sentiments when he referred to those who disagree with him as indulging in an “illegitimate neo-political campaign” (whatever a neo-political campaign might be). In a democracy, people have a right to talk nonsense, so calling what they say illegitimate displays a rather worrying lack of respect for freedom of expression.
A wise judge always deals with specifics, not vague conspiracy theories. A wise judge – one of stature – does not insult unnamed NGOs and commentators, but demolishes specific remarks and specific arguments made by commentators or NGOs with calmness, understatement and cold reason. He or she eschews emotional language and couches trenchant criticism in a diplomatic manner.
Luckily for the chief justice, the anti-transformation complaint lodged against him by Hoffman in defence of the (financial and other) interests of some white men detracted attention from the rather undiplomatic and otherwise stature-diminishing tone of the speech.
Ironically, by attacking the chief justice and lodging a complaint, Hoffman enhanced the credibility of Chief Justice Mogoeng in the eyes of many of us. In fact, maybe the chief justice should think of hiring Hoffman as his PR representative.
Such are the politics of race and redress.
In a world in which racism is deeply entrenched and in which the power and privilege of whiteness perpetuates and defends itself aggressively, it is difficult for most of us to choose sides in favour of white privilege (read, Hoffman).
That is why we choose the side of the chief justice, even as we acknowledge that he could have presented his argument in a manner that displayed more wisdom, high-mindedness and maturity.
* Professor Pierre de Vos teaches constitutional law at UCT.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Newspapers.
The Star