11 Oct 2006: ISS Today: South Africa: Is the Administration of Justice Under Threat?

11 October 2006: South Africa: Is the Administration of Justice Under Threat?

 

The recent trials of Jacob Zuma among other things witnessed large groups of people demonstrating support outside the courts in which he appeared.   This is true for both his rape trial in Gauteng and the corruption trial in Kwa-Zulu Natal. There is not doubt that the demonstrators were exercising their constitutionally entrenched right to demonstrate.  Also noteworthy is the fact that none of the presiding officers complained about the presence of these demonstrators outside the court building.  The question, however, is: are such demonstrations conducive for the administration of justice?

 

The recent cases of the ANC Deputy President, Jacob Zuma, were characterized by huge gatherings of changing and praise-singing multitudes of political supporters.  These supporters gathered in the vicinity of the courts to demonstrate their unwavering political support for Zuma.  Many of them believed, rightly or wrongly, that he was treated unfairly and that the state institutions were being used to harass him. They also wanted to unequivocally express their belief that the court actions against him were a political ploy aimed at hindering his ascent to the top position in the organization and consequently in the country.

 

It is true that in a democratic state, such as South Africa, the right to gather and to demonstrate is entrenched in the Bill of Rights.  Equally true, however, is the fact that our Constitution makes a clear call upon all state organs to respect and support the courts. Moreover, the need to respect and support the courts, applies to individuals and organizations in the interest of proper administration of justice.  The ultimate aim is to ensure that the courts are safe and protected so as to provide an atmosphere of tranquility and dignity that is conducive to the onerous task of dispensing justice without fear, bias and favour. The respect for the courts suggests that they must be given space to do their work without interference of whatever kind and without ridicule of their activities.

 

While the gatherings which took place in the precincts of the courts where Mr. Zuma appeared may have been authorized, the question that begs answering is whether actions of this nature are conducive to the administration of justice. Were these actions not tantamount to putting not so subtle, and very real, pressure on the judges not to rule against Mr. Zuma?  Under such circumstances, can a court carry out its duties free of duress? Does there exist a possibility that the pronouncements of the court may lead to eruption of chaos, mayhem and bloodshed?  This question becomes more relevant if one considers that the court appearance were often followed by political meetings and speeches in that one does not know what the reaction of the supporters would be should the outcome not be the popular or expected one.

 

The independence of the courts in the administration of justice is jealously guarded in law.  In section 165, the Constitution assures the courts of their independence in the administration of justice, and prohibits any person or organ of state from interfering with the functioning of the courts. The Constitution further obliges other organs of state to assist and protect the courts to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness. Whether, by allowing scenes like we witnessed during these appearances, the authorities were complying with these provisions of the basic law is questionable. The Constitution empowers organs of state “through legislative and other measures” to protect and assist the courts. One can only hope something positive will be done before the situation gets out of hand.

 

The fact that the courts did not publicly complain about these incidents might mean that they (the courts) saw them as the exercise of legitimate rights, especially as other state organs appeared to have permitted or even endorsed them. Even with that silence from the courts, there cannot be any doubt that these actions created an atmosphere of unease around the courts. The courts are not called upon to admit that there was a measure of fear or intimidation, no matter how subtle, but to deny that there was any such feeling would be disingenuous. 

 

Jake Moloi, Crime and Justice Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria) Office