Judicial Service Commission Interview with Deputy Chief Justice Pius Nkonzo Langa
Wednesday, 4 April 2005
Judge Chaskalson:
Deputy Chief Justice I think if you look around the table of the people on this Commission I am sure that you know everyone, if not all, I am sure that there is almost everyone whom you have contact with over your career in the judiciary and so we wont go through the formal acknowledging that we all know you. I would like to begin the process by welcoming you to this meeting and as you know that the President has requested us to consider his nomination, his indication, that he wishes you to be the next Chief Justice of South Africa and has asked this Commission to advise him in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution. You are most welcome.
Judge Langa:
Thank you.
Judge Chaskalson:
I want to begin, before I ask my
colleagues to put such questions as they may have by going into your
background. You, yourself, it is right, you were born in 1939.
Judge Langa:
That is correct, yes. It seems such a long time ago
Judge Chaskalson:
Well it is indeed. I was almost eight at that time. But you went through school, partly through private study and partly, I would imagine, in the places you were living in. Your parents were …your father was a preacher was he?
Judge Langa:
My father was a Reverend gentleman, yes.
Judge Chaskalson
Did that mean that you moved around a bit or were you in Bushbuckridge all the time?
Judge Langa:
Well he moved around before I was born and landed in Bushbuckridge. He was originally from Natal and I just happened to be born in Bushbuckridge. We left Bushbuckridge when I was very small. I have no recollection at all of Bushbuckridge at the time.
Judge Chaskalson:
Yes. Does that mean that you lived in various places where your father’s calling took him?
Judge Langa:
Yes. It was actually a tour of most of South Africa. From Bushbuckridge we moved on to a place called Messina, Louis Trichard, a place called Pietersburg then. I think all the names have changed now. Eventually though we landed back in Natal which is now Kwazulu/Natal.
Judge Chaskalson:
Yes, and would it be correct that when you were about eighteen you started your first job working in a shirt factory?
Judge Langa:
Yes. It was in 1956 when I found this job in the shirt factory and from then on of course … I worked for three and a half years there learning to make shirts but thereafter I found a job in the Department of Justice.
Judge Chaskalson:
You started first as an interpreter and a messenger and went through various grades in the department and during that process you obtained first a B.Iuris degree and then later an LLB.
Judge Langa:
That is correct.
Judge Chaskalson:
The LLB was really by private study through the University of South Africa.
Judge Langa:
Both B.Iuris and LLB were by private study through the University of South Africa.
Judge Chaskalson:
Yes, and in about April 1977, you would have been in your twenties then would you, you left the department and were admitted as an advocate and you started practising as an advocate in Durban.
Judge Langa:
That is correct. That was almost immediately after graduating with my LLB.
Judge Chaskalson:
Yes, and you were appointed as a senior counsel in January 1994 and subsequently in October 1994 you were amongst the first judges appointed to the Constitutional Court.
Judge Langa:
That is correct, yes.
Judge Chaskalson:
And you became Deputy President of that Court in 1997 and then with effect from November 2001 you became the Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa.
Judge Langa:
That is correct.
Judge Chaskalson:
Now if we could just go back a little bit into your background I think it took you both through your work and through your activities … your work was …… a large part of your work would have been engaged in community interests, political trials, advising civic bodies and a very strong community based practice and also a personal involvement in many of the community organizations.
Judge Langa:
Yes, that is correct. My home was actually just an extension of my office and community work was both at my work place and at our home.
Judge Chaskalson:
Yes and that would really have been very closely linked with those who were engaged in the struggle against Apartheid at that time from inside of the country. Supportive work and participatory work yourself.
Judge Langa:
Yes, and later with those who were outside the country as well.
Judge Chaskalson
Yes and as far as the legal world was concerned, you were one of the founder members of the Democratic Lawyers Association which subsequently became the National Association of Democratic Lawyers known as Nadel.
Judge Langa:
That’s right.
Judge Chaskalson:
And you were active in Nadel being its president for some time until you were appointed to the Constitutional Court.
Judge Langa:
Yes. I was president for too long but eventually I was rescued by an appointment to the Constitutional Court.
Judge Chaskalson:
You, yourself were active in many community organizations involving both the law and community organizations outside of the law. I don’t want to take you through all of them but they included matters like the Community Legal Services, the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, the Trustee of the Legal Resources Trust, the Centre for Socio-legal studies in Natal and I think you were one of the founders of the Southern African Legal Defence Fund (SALDEF) over that period, the latter part of the eighties and early nineties.
Judge Langa:
Yes. That is correct.
Judge Chaskalson:
And during the eighties and nineties you also served on the structures of the United Democratic Front.
Judge Langa:
Yes.
Judge Chaskalson:
And then you were involved in the constitutional discussions at the time of Codesa.
Judge Langa:
That is right
Judge Chaskalson:
And I think you participated both there and at the Multi-Party Negotiating Forum.
Judge Langa:
Yes.
Judge Chaskalson:
And you had also been part of the …. You were a member of the African National Congress’ constitutional committee and you had been part of the, one of the advisors to the Groote Schuur talks and the Pretoria Talks.
Judge Langa:
That is correct.
Judge Chaskalson
And I think that one looks at your curriculum vitae and all the members of the Commission have it and I am sure the media have it as well, you will see other activities which I am not going to dwell on which you have been very active on in community and anti apartheid affairs. After you were a member of the Constitutional Court you were asked by the President to chair a commission to probe the election issues in Lesotho. I think the President had been asked by the Lesotho Government to do so and you did that. You chaired that commission did you?
Judge Langa:
Yes I did. It was a SADC initiative.
Judge Chaskalson:
A SADC initiative and I think you were also asked by the Commonwealth to take an active role in trying to promote the return to democracy in the Fiji islands.
Judge Langa:
Yes. They called me a special envoy.
Judge Chaskalson:
And being a special envoy which you undertook during, I think, a court recess turned out to involve several recesses and quite a lot of more work than might originally have been contemplated.
Judge Langa:
That is correct, yes.
Judge Chaskalson:
But I think both the Langa Commission in Lesotho and your commission in the Fiji proved to be productive in the end.
Judge Langa:
Yes. From my perspective I think that they were both successful undertakings, yes.
Judge Chaskalson:
I think from the country’s point of view as well.
Judge Langa:
I must say that I was honoured to have been asked to do those two functions.
Judge Chaskalson:
Yes, and you have also participated in constitutional review commissions in Sri Lanka, in Zimbabwe, in Rwanda and Tanzania at the request of the International Bar Association and the Cameroon Government, you were asked to lead a delegation into the review and integration of that country’s criminal justice system into a broader legal framework.
Judge Langa:
Yes.
Judge Chaskalson:
And you have been, again at the request of the Commonwealth, you were part of a group which was responsible for compiling the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Ethics.
Judge Langa
Yes.
Judge Chaskalson:
And I think that the Commonwealth has kept you quite actively engaged in issues around the integrity of the judiciary and concerns which might arise in certain areas of the Commonwealth relating to corruption.
Judge Langa:
That is correct. They seem to consider that my work at the Constitutional Court is spare time.
Judge Chaskalson
You have also been visiting professors and various universities inside and outside of South Africa and have received awards of Doctors of Law, Honouris Causa from the university of Zululand, the University of the Western Cape and the University of Cape Town and other awards from lawyers’ organizations both inside of South Africa and outside of South Africa.
Judge Langa:
That is correct, yes.
Judge Chaskalson
And you are married with children and grandchildren.
Judge Langa:
That is so.
Judge Chaskalson
Now Deputy Chief Justice I would like to ask you about certain issues which are in the public domain for you to tell us what your views are and also to ask you generally about how you would see the role of the Chief Justice for which the President has nominated you. In recent times, the last period there has been a great deal of media attention to the question of racism and sexism within the judiciary and I think also within the legal profession. Can you just tell us your attitude to that and what should be done about that?
Judge Langa:
Yes. My starting point would be to say that a judge is a part of the Community and the South African community has a history, we have a history of separation, a history of patriarchy and it would be surprising if members of the judiciary did not themselves have some of the prejudices which are shared by the rest of the community but having said that the South African community again committed itself to a particular way of living to values in 1994 but it is also necessary to undertake positive steps to ensure that that pocket of society which consists of judges is also exposed to the assistance which one gets when one looks at …..for that to happen I think we need to undertake certain positive steps - Judicial Education. I am an advocate of Judicial Education that should incorporate an awareness, making people aware of their own prejudices, making people aware of the richness of our diversity because the more you don’t know people on the other side of the fence the more you are prejudiced against them or the easier it is to be prejudiced against them. So I think a lot of education is still necessary among the whole community particularly among people holding public office. I think it is necessary in the legal profession. I think it is crucial, it is critical for judges to undertake that kind of education.
Judge Chaskalson:
Deputy Chief Justice can you talk in fairly general terms, and I don’t want to ask any specific questions at the moment, about the role of the Chief Justice and what you would see as your role, the sort of judiciary you would like to see and the contribution you could make to that and to the institution of the judiciary in our country?
Judge Langa:
The role of the Chief Justice of course … you would remember Chief Justice that I have lived with Chief Justices already and I must say they have been exemplary people. They have been people of special talents and special leadership qualities. I think a Chief Justice need not actually be the best judge in all respect or the best human being in all respect but I think the Chief Justice should be able to recognise the talent and be able to use that talent among other colleagues. In South Africa we subscribe to a doctrine of separation of powers. The Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The Chief Justice of course would be the leader with regard to the third arm of government. The Chief Justice would be the person looked up to by all the judges to give leadership when there is a crisis and crises, we learn from time to time, do happen sometimes though one wishes they would not. The Chief Justice would be the link between that third arm of government with the other arms of government. The Chief Justice would be the person who people look up to when we look for stability in the whole judiciary so I think those special talents of recognising that role would be a necessary attribute to the Chief Justice, but I think the Chief Justice also should be somebody who is able to work with other people because the challenges facing our community, the challenges facing South Africa are enormous. The challenges in the judiciary itself are great. The judiciary has to perform a function within the South African community where it is recognised for its integrity, its impartiality but it should also be recognised with the extent to which it succeeds in the delivery of justice. So while the Chief Justice would not work alone there, while there are collectives, the Chief Justice, I think, should give inspiration to those collectives and be able to work with those groups of people who naturally work in that field.
The Heads of Courts are a very important part of that. It becomes collective leadership but then of course the Chief Justice would have to have links with other role players – we call them stakeholders in the delivery of justice. I think of the legal profession. I think of law faculties, but also the government departments whose function it is to smooth the way for the administration of justice. Department of Justice. But also the President of the country as leader of the Executive which is the other arm of government and with Parliament as well. We need to have a language to correct things that are wrong. We need to have a language to lead as far as the judiciary is concerned but we also need to have a language to address the concerns of people who do not necessarily feel that they have the capacity, they have the means to access the justice. That briefly is it but of course the Chief Justice also leads a court, a particular court. In this case it is the Constitutional Court which in terms of South African history is a new court. It is now ten years old and it was tasked to do the function of piloting constitutional life and streamlining it and I should say, under the leadership of the previous leaders of the Court, present company included, it has, I think, played a pivotal role in clarifying what the Constitution really means in South Africa.
Judge Chaskalson:
Deputy Chief Justice I don’t want to take up all the time. I must leave time for other members of the Commission to ask questions but there is one thing I would like you to talk about before I invite the other members of the Commission to ask you such questions as they may have in the light of what you have put on the table. I would like to raise the question of the transformation of the judiciary with you and ask you to comment, to talk about that.
Judge Langa:
Again my starting point would be the Constitution itself. Strangely I had the honour to chair the last session of the Judicial Service Commission and I was confronted quite head on with issues about transformation so in that sense I feel a bit awkward, odd to be sitting here and being the person interviewed on transformation. Anyway I say my starting point is the Constitution itself which speaks of the need for the judiciary to reflect the race and gender composition of South Africans so the issue of transformation becomes a constitutional imperative and I think it is going to be important for it to occupy that place, at any rate, until we reach a stage where we regard South Africa in those terms as a completely normal society in terms of …. when the whole legacy of Apartheid has been dissipated. But transformation for me is not just that. It does not just start with the race and gender composition of judges. It also goes further. It has to do with the content, with the substance, the direction and the orientation of the judges themselves. I think the race and gender aspect is important because it is a physical aspect and this is what our people see when they look at judges. Are these our judges? Do they look like us? Do we know where they come from? Do they know where we come from? So that is important otherwise we don’t have confidence in strange people. You don’t understand even if they do say that they are independent, they are impartial. But the second aspect of it which I think is very important has to do with their orientation as well and that is the aspect where I think the importance of judicial education is also highlighted. People who are sensitive to the needs of people in terms of their orientation because that is the nature of our Constitution. People who are weathered to the values of the Constitution. The Constitution highlights the values of equality, human dignity, freedom. We speak of the rule of law. It speaks of sovereignty of the Constitution itself, so you want your judges to have that kind of ethic and when they perform their functions this is something which should shine through. This is, of course, connected with the traditional values which one expects of all judges, that is integrity. That is impartiality. These are the values which are incorporated in the oath of office of all the judges. But having said that I just want to underline that the judiciary needs to have the confidence of the public. The strength of the democracy will be measured also in terms of how much the public has confidence in its judiciary. I think courts are very important and the way they do their work is very important. We keep on saying that they must be accessible to the people. They must be people friendly, not hostile. They must be places to solve problems and not places where people become dehumanised and denuded of their human dignity and so on. But it is important that the judiciary and the courts in general should have the confidence of the public. That will indicate the strength of the democracy itself.
Adv. Langa:
I think it is one of the reasons, yes.
Judge Chaskalson:
Thank you Deputy Chief Justice. I am now going to open up the discussion to the members of the Commission and in accordance with our customs if people will indicate who wishes to speak and I will call upon them in the order that I see their interest.
Adv. Moerane:
Thank you Chief Justice. Chief Justice has spared us from having to declare our ages in particular. Deputy Chief Justice you have had occasion in the past year to act as the Chief Justice during the absence on long leave of the Chief Justice. My first question is how did you find that experience? How long was your period of acting?
Judge Langa:
The period was roughly six months. I had the misfortune that as Deputy Chief Justice and acting in the position of Chief Justice I did not have a Deputy Chief Justice. So I carried my position as Deputy into that position as Acting Chief Justice as well. Well, how did I find it? The idea of acting as Chief Justice was of course exhilarating. This is now the theoretical part. Exhilarating. I think it is a great position of honour and responsibility. So as far as that was concerned I felt very honoured to be asked to act in that position. But it was also a position which required much industry. The work of the Chief Justice …. I will just paint a small picture of how the president Chief Justice works. He is first at the office. I think he arrives at the office at around … I say I think, because I have never arrived before he does. He arrives at around half past seven. I arrive a little later than that but he is at his desk working. The work entails administration, not just of the Constitutional Court but it goes beyond the Constitutional Court. This is a Chief Justice of South Africa and the duties entails being in tough with very many people. So the does that. I felt I had to change my habits somewhat slightly, adjust them in order to be able to do those things. Then he finishes his work quickly because he is able to go home at around six o’ clock or maybe seven o’ clock. I was a bit slower, also clearing the other function of Deputy Chief Justice so I would leave later at around nine o’ clock or maybe ten o’ clock sometimes. Anyway the job itself and presiding over cases, the Constitution Court works in that fashion. All the judges have to sit in all the cases so the Chief Justice obviously presides over those cases. You need thorough preparation in order to do that so I had to do that. So while I found it exhilarating and exciting to be doing that particularly with the assistance of my nine other colleagues who were excellent in their support and all the other support systems which we have at the court, I found it also a job which challenges one but I would like to think that I was able to do the work. I particularly enjoyed sitting on the Judicial Service Commission and chairing it. So with all the challenges, with all the demands on one’s time and energy I think it is a job which demands a sense of responsibility and it does demand energy as well.
Adv. Moerane:
Thank you. Those who read yesterday’s papers will know that we have been asked to “grill” you and I see the Chief Justice has already started the process by asking some of the things that it was suggested you should be asked but coming back to the question of transformation of the judiciary, where would you locate that field of activity? In particular would you locate it as part of transformation and reconstruction of South African Society and if so in what respect?
Judge Langa:
I have alluded to our history. That history included the fact that black people were not represented in the higher judiciary and in the lower judiciary there were very few and they were in far found places called the “homelands” and those were the magistrates. This, of course, was a great waste of a lot of talent. So many people there who would have become very good judges, excellent judges, excellent judicial officers but the system itself denied them that opportunity. And of course we should also factor in the other aspect that there would not have been much enthusiasm among many black people to be judges in that kind of system where they had to administer laws which in turn oppressed them. I think the issue of transformation should be located not just in the judiciary itself but it is a wider issue and it involves the whole of South African society. In order for instance, and I know that the Judicial Service Commission has grappled with this, in order for instance to increase the pool of people from whom judges should be appointed, firstly you do need a larger pool. You do need the involvement of other people other than judges themselves or aspirant judges whom we know. One would have to, or one needs to restructure training aspects, training starting from universities themselves. We need to interest people who haven’t even entered university to study law but once they are in law faculties you want them to be fired with an interest to stay within the practise of law and to aspire to be one day a judge. You need, when they start practising law you need to give them the sort of support that makes for good lawyers and that support of course is tied up with the economic imbalances of the country as well. Many young legal graduates get attracted to other forms of endeavours because they sometimes don’t find a home within the legal profession itself. We need to change that. We need to find ways and means of encouraging the leaders of the legal profession to continue with the job of making that sector more hospitable to black candidate attorneys to black legal graduates and once they have started practising one needs to see really whether those practises are worth while to them and then one would need to look at the government departments to see whether they are supporting the progress of those people who because if they are left to their own communities, their communities have been traditionally poor and that also is another struggle, a process which has to take place to improve the economic life of, in particular, black communities. So you need encouragement right through. Young advocates and young attorneys need to get some sort of assistance so that they are not discouraged and drop off before they get to the level where they can be part of that pool from which the judiciary will be appointed.
And then of course transformation goes further. Once people enter the judiciary itself they need to find a welcoming atmosphere there as well. Mentoring is, I think, indispensable where older members of the judiciary mentor the younger members of the judiciary, where they give them encouragement, where legal practitioners contribute to that process in their own way and so on. But as I say it is something which involves the entire community, South African society but since we are talking about transformation of the judiciary I think that sector itself has a special responsibility. To devise strategies in so far as they can.
Adv. Moerane:
I suppose finally conditions of service and the remuneration of judges of the judiciary should also be made inviting.
Judge Langa:
Well I think that is part of the welcoming atmosphere that I alluded to. Can I just say one more thing about that aspect. You know the welcoming atmosphere is also necessary to develop the independence that is required of the judiciary. They should not feel beholden to anybody. The independence of the judiciary is one great attribute which should be nursed and which the Constitution itself wants to be protected.
Adv. Bizos:
Acting Chief Justice there are two aspects that I want to ask you about. The first is judicial independence. That may be threatened by the Executive, theoretically speaking, by attempts to influence public opinion or personal disposition as a result of ones background. In relation to the Executive whilst you have been a judge of the Constitutional Court in the last ten years, have you had any direct or indirect pressure from the Executive or any other quarter to decide a matter in accordance with their wishes rather than with your own conscience?
Judge Langa:
The answer to that is no, knowing that in litigation you must have winners and losers. That is the usual thing. Someone must win and the other one must lose. I can’t say that our decisions have not disappointed some people. Sometimes the Executive and sometimes Parliament but I have never had any pressure, well, from both sides. The Executive and the Legislature.
no work. I found that employment, which I do not call humble at all, as a learner sorter, it was a good job and I think I earned two pounds and eight pence a week. That was a lot of money then. Then I had always obviously wanted to study further. It was a big blow for me that I could not go to school for matriculation, and I studied privately. Studying privately was also very expensive and that accounts for the fact that I actually started my matric in 1960 and completed it that same year privately and then it took me another 10 years to start my legal studies simply because at that time I think the University of South Africa was very expensive. I can remember that we had to pay R15,00 per course and I simply could not afford that, but what I could say is that I persisted. Fortunately my study period was short. I finished my first degree and my second degree in a few years. At that time of course I was in the civil service and immediately I finished I resigned from the civil service and went to the Bar. That is the history, I do not know whether it encapsulates the struggle to get there, but it was something of the struggle.
Adv. Bizos:
The second source may be people who purport to speak on behalf of the people of South Africa in editorial comment, in newspaper reports or soap boxes on which they pronounce their beliefs. Has that sort of activity affected you or as far as you know the decisions of the highest court of the land?
Judge Langa:
I will give an answer which may be even anticipating your third question which I don’t know and that is no. The independence of judges really means subscribing to the oath of office and the oaths says you subscribe, you are accountable to the Constitution and the law and that really has been the guiding light in the decisions I have made and in the decisions as far as I know which my colleagues have made.
Adv. Bizos:
The other question that I want to ask you has relevance to the judicial independence but as Chief Justice how will you try to solve what some of us consider a problem of judges using their seats on the Bench to express doubts about the efficacy of the provisions of the Constitution by saying it is a pity that my right to sentence you to death has been taken away from me, that these fundamental rights which prevent me from admitting confessions which I would have admitted if there was no right to silence. That is one type of judge that upsets me as a member of the profession and also as a believer of the values of the Constitution. The other is in relation to racism and other generalisations that are made by some judges publicly. In relation to their colleagues, in relation to leading members of the profession or to say the least disputed facts which of necessity are given weight by the public because they come from judges. I believe that those two problems are very difficult problems that have to be solved particularly with the assistance of the new Chief Justice. How, if and when you are appointed, are you going to deal with these problems Acting Chief Justice?
Judge Langa:
That sounds like part of the “grilling”. It is alright.
Adv. Bizos:
No, I don’t accept that. We ask questions politely and patiently and give people an opportunity to answer them. It may be a good headline but it is not what happens here.
Judge Langa:
Thank you. The first aspect of the question. I did say that maybe what I said in answer to the previous question may have something to do with the third question. I believe very strongly that, and I think that is correct, that judges must subscribe to the Constitution and their function is to protect the Constitution and the values of the Constitution. I mean they are there. They are clear and there are sufficient decisions of the courts which explains some of those which may seem to be more obscure. I would disapprove of a judicial officer saying the Constitution is wrong here and by abolishing the death penalty the Constitution is not correct. I would disapprove of that but then the big question is what do you do about it and I think that is why the judiciary itself recommended that there should be a mechanism for dealing with complaints. I believe that mechanism … well it is still in the process, in the making, but the sooner we have that mechanism then people can take those kinds of complaints to the mechanism and the mechanism will deal with those complaints and with those judges, if they are found to have contravened that.
The second aspect relates to racism. I think it is important for us to know that there are two aspects into allegations of racism. There is the perception of the person making the allegation firstly who is the recipient on the receiving side of acts of racism and then there is the aspect of the person who is the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator. Now the impact of what I say to you today Mr Bizos if I were to just make a statement, the impact may be different to you, different to what it is to somebody else. Some person may feel that is racist is itself but you may not necessarily feel that. But that is not apologising for rash allegations. I don’t think there is a place for rash allegations. I don’t think there is a place for generalisations. That is why, in fact, in dealing with allegations of racism or instances which are pointed out of racism. My attitude is that this should be confronted straight away. The person who is the recipient of this should confront the perpetrator and deal, particularly if you are in a leadership position, and deal with that because in dealing with that it has the added advantage of the other person withdrawing and apologising firstly or explaining himself or herself in order to get over that hump. It happens daily in South Africa that people make statements which are interpreted as some as racist which in fact are racist but which possibly quite a sizeable population would not have taken umbrage at that kind of statement so it is an area where we need, firstly, to show zero tolerance to racism. I hate it and I don’t think we should give it any ….. Secondly it is an area where people need to be careful. I think it is sufficient really that when there are allegations of racism the sheer weight of this makes us all jump and see to what extent the mechanisms that we have meet those kinds of situations and of course if we find that they don’t or we have no mechanisms at all we need to put mechanisms in place. That is my attitude to that. We should be responsible. We should exercise leadership. We should try to solve problems but we should at the same time go public in order to enable the country to have public mechanisms to deal with racism and to actually show its zero tolerance.
Adv. Bizos:
One final short question Acting Chief Justice. I want to take you back more than ten years ago when you were sitting there and being questioned for appointment to the Constitutional Court. Allegations were made in relation to you and majority of the other candidates that were nominated, the nine to be appointed six of whom were to be appointed by the President, was that you all came with, to use that kind of expression, liberation credentials. That is my expression, not theirs. Has your background in any way in the liberation struggle been a hindrance to your independence throughout your judicial career?
Judge Langa:
My background and experiences which I acquired during the liberation struggle I think sharpened my sensitivity to the suffering of people and I think that is precisely the point about getting people from a variety of backgrounds. This is South Africa. It is a country of diversity. Those life experiences, I think, are important. There are things I can’t take out of me but in terms of political parties that is a different matter. If my concern for people, if my concern for the plight of the poor, of the weak, of the suffering led me in a particular direction during that time obviously it was inappropriate to take political affiliation into my office as a judge and that is a point I make from time to time. That is a point I would make when somebody approaches me on the basis of political affiliation or perceived political affiliation or what they believe should be affiliation ….. political parties change and people come and go in political parties but one thing they should always know is that the judge will deal with each matter on its merits, with integrity, regardless of political affiliations and so on. So my political background has not had an effect on the manner in which I decide cases except that I think all judges should have a kind of sensitivity which you learn in involvement with people themselves on the ground and I have endeavoured to take that and keep it with me.
Adv. Bizos:
Thank you.
Judge President Hlophe:
Thank you Chief Justice. Deputy Chief Justice I have just two questions for you. The first one is this. What changes, if any, do you intend introducing to the office of the Chief Justice in relation to the way it is structured and in relation to the way it operates?
Judge Langa:
Well firstly I would like to increase the capacity to assist the increase of the capacity of the Chief Justice’s office. What I have just said about how the Chief Justice works at the moment is, I should say, just not acceptable. The Chief Justice has a capacity for a lot of work but I think his office or the office of the Chief Justice needs strengthening a great deal. The Chief Justice needs to concentrate on supervising those processes and not be as hands on at every stage right up to the end so in other words what I am talking about is simplifying that work so that it can be done more effectively. That is one change I would like to see being made. The other processes of course are developing. I mean there are discussions about what is the meaning of a single judiciary and so on. I can’t say I quite understand what it does mean at the moment but it is something which is being talked about. It is something which is developing. I think the Chief Justice would have to give effect, to add value to the content of that, if it happens and to give meaning to it in a practical way which suits the South African community.
Judge President Hlophe:
The final question to you is this Sir. More and more in Africa speaking politically and in terms of the economic reality, Africa seems to be getting together, trying to work together. Do you think at the level of the judiciary the Chief Justice should play a role in terms of making sure that the Africans work together, given our common history and our common problems in Africa?
Judge Langa:
The answer is yes, of course. We need to do that. I should mention that we have established, initiated actually, a body called the Southern African Judges Commission which involves Southern African countries where the Chief Justices of those jurisdictions all the way starting from Kenya, Zambia, coming down, it is about fourteen jurisdictions at the moment including Mauritius and Seychelles, Angola and Mozambique where the Chief Justices from time to time get together. They meet. They talk about issues of mutual interest and co-operation and I must also say that what became the catalyst for that were problems which were encountered by the judiciaries in neighbouring states. Problems which involved the independence of those judiciaries, the confrontations with the Executive in those jurisdictions. So that became the impetus to establishing that kind of forum. One other advantage of the forum of course and that is what we are concentrating on doing is a positive aspect such as co-operation. Co-operation in the field of exchanging judicial decisions, in improving the workings of those judiciaries in training, judicial education and those kinds of aspects. But I think the question goes further. It relates also the jurisprudence of African countries. Our Constitution does say that we should have regard to foreign decisions and we do. The infrastructure in some of our African countries is not as well developed as in others also in Africa and certainly not as in South Africa. What we have been trying to do is to communicate with most of the jurisdictions, other jurisdictions in Africa. We have sent word that we would like to be connected with them. We would like them to be connected with us. We have a website where we deal with our decisions. We put them on there. We want them to be accessible to them and in those forums like the Commission that I have spoken about, we talk about these things, that we would like to enrich our own jurisprudence through being able to access the decisions of the other courts in other parts of the African continent. So this is something which is also work in progress. We hope to achieve a lot as far as that is concerned particularly with the development of our virtual library which the Constitutional Court has done. But I think one needs to emphasise that in as much as we refer to decisions in the United States of America, in Germany, in Canada, in the United Kingdom, the European courts, it is also as important that we should be aware what is happening on the African continent and that is one aspect that I am also paying attention to.
Judge Chaskalson:
Deputy Chief Justice may I just add that the, I think everyone should know, that the infrastructure for that is based in Johannesburg at our court and that you have paid a particularly active role in promoting the Southern African Judges Commission.
Adv. Moroka:
Thank you Chair. Deputy Chief Justice I am going to apologise because I am going to repeat a question and I apologise to the Chair too because I know we are pressed for time. But my difficulty is that I probably need to say that I am repeating the question because I want to engage you about the answers you have given us about it and you probably know that that is my passion and that is why I am going to ask the question again. The Chief Justice asked you the question and Mr Moerane asked you about transformation and more specifically of the legal profession not with particular attention to the judiciary. Your answer talks about the things that we need to do but it talks about generalities. The difficulty that we face as the Judicial Service Commission is that we have been asking people … we take this opportunity to ask people this question because it doesn’t seem that we are moving. In the past ten years in this Commission we have asked this question of so many people and speaking for myself as a woman advocate at the Bar I just don’t get a sense that things are changing. I don’t get a sense that when you talk about there is a need to support black lawyers, that that support is there and I am engaging you because the Minister is here and this is an opportunity for me to say as I asked you your question that you mention the need to support and you mention government departments and as I speak to you today for instance resignations in my group as an advocate, of two woman advocates. So I say to myself we talk about these things. We debate them amongst ourselves at the Judicial Service Commission but the truth of the matter is, practically nothing is changing and I want to find out from you what is it that you would say to the Minister, to the Deputy Minister and to all the people assembled here, what is it that we can do, to change, to increase the number of women practitioners so that one day we actually do have, when you look at our figures, we have got figures that are supplied by Mr Moerane about members of the judiciary. You have eight African women, you have thirteen white women, you have two coloured and two Indian – if these figures are right as of 2003. You say it has changed Mr von Klemperer but the change is minimal. It is actually no change. Sorry for that long winded question and please don’t tell me about what …. If you could, if you don’t know what we can do maybe we should all admit that we don’t really know what we can do about it.
Judge Langa:
Advocate Moroka I am not Chief Justice yet.
Adv. Moroka:
My apologies
Judge Langa:
But I think you are quite right. I am impatient with the rate of change. The Constitutional Court hears many important cases. I am sure all the other courts hear very many important cases. You look at the ranks of counsel. There are two things I want to mention about counsel. Obviously counsel are instructed. They work on instructions. They are briefed. Some are briefed by the government and others are briefed by other litigating parties but just looking at their ranks you see a preponderance and I am being generous. Sometimes it is exclusively male, white people appearing. There is a trickle of black counsel coming to the Constitutional Court. I wish you could change that. I wish. I told you I don’t wield all the power yet and even if I did you know some of the changes have got to go through long pipelines and I am afraid this one has been put in one of those very long pipelines and it is not just our court it happens in other courts as well. You asked me what would I say to the Minister, to the Deputy Minister. I have spoken to State Attorneys. I have spoken to the Minister, successive Ministers of Justice. I have suggested that there should be a conscious effort to assist in developing black legal practitioners. I have said in the past and I don’t mind repeating it here and I will keep on repeating it until something happens. I have said there should be a conscious effort to develop and to strengthen legal practitioners and where we are lacking there can’t really be meaningful transformation of the Bench if there is no meaningful transformation of legal practice. It is something I have been saying but of course what you are accusing me of is saying and not wielding, and not shortening the pipeline. I remember when I was in legal practice when we were doing things through organizations such as Nadel and the BLA, we were very concerned that when the constitutional dispensation changes we are not going to have sufficient people who are going to be appointable and we wanted to increase that pool. We tried certain strategies to give them judicial training. We actually went some way towards that but I think things have got caught up with us and we need more strategies now. I think the plight of women should be transformed quickly and I think your Bar should do something pretty dramatic to do that. I think the plight of black practitioners also should change quickly and I think your Bar should be more vocal, if it is vocal, it should be more vocal about that. I know we have received representations from Bar Councils, from Law Societies about initiatives which they are taking but standing at the end of the line you actually want to see results. I must say something else which we gained from the meetings that we have been having in the last two days. The Legal Aid Board, informed us, and I am not breaking any confidences, I think it is public knowledge, informed us that they are now training candidate attorneys and I think in training at the moment are six hundred and four candidate attorneys. So that all those I think are measures to shorten the pipeline. But I still don’t understand why the State Attorneys are not more robust in assisting the black legal practitioners, why government departments….. there are three layers of government here. There is national government, provincial governments, there is local government. Why all those people don’t do it. When I was in practice all the insurance companies briefed white lawyers. We would come in at the other end of the spectrum to defend the ….to represent victims. You did not get a black lawyer representing a corporation, an insurance company. Some of the people here are involved in corporations at the moment and I am looking very closely to see what they do to transform those corporations’ briefing patterns. Unless we do that, unless the whole community takes part in that the pipe will remain very, very long. That is my answer to this.
Adv. Seligson:
Thank you Chief Justice. Justice Langa you mentioned the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary as being important principles enshrined in the Constitution and you also stressed the importance of judicial education and training particularly with reference to enhancing sensitivity to diversity. I would like to hear your views on how judicial education and training should be structured in a manner that is consistent with both the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers.
Judge Langa:
Well in a sense that is a leading question but I will answer it anyway. I believe that judicial education is extremely important. I also believe that it is important to deal with judicial education on the basis of who is giving the judicial education. How it is being given but I think whatever is done regarding judicial education should be very serious and it should be structured. In the past what we have been doing is conducting courses through donor funding, courses for aspirant judges. When I say we it is the judiciary that they have been doing that together with the universities and through donor funding and bringing aspirant ….. when we say aspirant judges they are people selected on the basis of their appoint-ability, bringing them together and imparting, subjecting them to lectures and discussion by other judges and so on. I would like to see that to be more structured. Obviously the minutest detail is something which would need to be worked out. That donor funding has proved not to be a permanent arrangement but for me and I am saying straight out, I don’t think one should separate the minute detail from the principle of it. I think the teaching, the structuring, that is the decision as to what should form judicial education should come from judges themselves. This is in accordance with independence. The judges should control this system of judicial education because what comes out of it you want a judicial education which is imparted by the judiciary itself. That is in keeping with the independence of the judiciary. That is what I believe in and that is what I would like to see.
Adv. Seligson:
Yes. My next question is what broad principles do you believe do you believe should govern the judicial complaints procedures that are consistent also with the independence of the judiciary?
Judge Langa:
Firstly I want to say this that with regard to complaints and complaints procedures in relation to the judiciary, this is a matter in which the public have a huge interest. They want to know that when they complain the complaint will be dealt with seriously. It will not be swept under the carpet. When they complain about a judicial officer it won’t be swept under the carpet. It won’t be sanitised. It will be dealt with properly. The public need to know that. I would imagine that an ideal structure for that kind of thing would be a structure which accommodates the judges themselves and their independence but also accommodates the need for transparency for the public to know because you need that in order to retain the confidence of the public. How this is structured again is a matter of detail and it is something that I do not need to get into.
Adv. Seligson:
My final question relates to the independence of the legal profession itself. Do you see the independence of the legal profession as an important principle that ties in with the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law?
Judge Langa:
Yes of course, the answer is yes. The legal profession is the source, is the pool from which judges are appointed. It is important that the legal profession should be governed in such a way that independence, that sense of independence is enhanced. They, themselves, members of the legal profession should be seen to be independent. I think those are traditional attributes and I think they should be developed and maintained. It is important for the governance of the profession itself. Quite apart from the one result and that is producing judges the other result is the legal profession is a protector of the general public and people need to know that it is being run scrupulously by the profession itself, that people who cross the line, members of the profession who cross the line are dealt with by the profession and are dealt with properly. Again I would go back to not sweeping things under the carpet, I would go back to issues of transparency. People want to know. I mean if somebody complains about a member of the profession it may be a very serious complaint. They want to know what happens. They don’t want to loose faith in the legal profession because it plays such a pivotal role. But yes, I think its governance … I would favour a system where the governance of the profession is also an independent system. But having said that of course I think there are times when the legal profession is to be given a push so that it …. People should always be able to scrutinise what is happening and if people are not happy about what is happening they will always come with suggestions about how to improve the governance issues pertaining to it but my ideal would be an independent profession. In fact I think it is indispensable.
Adv. Seligson:
Thank you
Adv. Nthai:
Not so long ago I read an article in the newspaper and this article disturbed me for almost a week and I take it that it disturbed you as well. You were described in that newspaper article as a gradualist. My understanding of that description is that if you were appointed Chief Justice you will take a gradual approach to transformation. Now having known you for so many years and having met you in the trenches of the struggle I was wondering as to whether something does happen when people are appointed as judges of the Constitutional Court in the sense that freedom fighters now become gradualist freedom fighters. Can you really explain this. I was really disturbed?
Judge Langa:
Well one thing I would say is don’t believe everything you read. I think when it comes to transformation the Constitution is pretty explicit and I can’t be gradualist about it so my answer to that is no. I think there are imperatives and those imperatives should be fulfilled. The impetus to the things we were doing in Nadel for instance had nothing to do with being gradual about. It wanted to transform a system and my idea of transformation is quite revolutionary, just changing things over quickly.
Mr Nakanunu:
I would have asked you more questions but because of time let me just ask you one question. There has been a public outcry about the type of sentences metered out for what is perceived by the people out there for the same criminal offence and yet sentences differ. Do you think we should seriously look into a penal code in this country?
Judge Langa:
That is not an easy question. I should say that when we talk about legal education and bringing judges together and judicial officers together sentencing policy is one of the issues that would feature in those, if I had my way. It would feature in those kinds of seminars. The outcries in relation to sentences, I think most of them would emanate from not having the sort of facts which your judicial officer has so looking at a distance I think any jurist would shy away from entering into the workings, into the finer detail of sentencing but I think there is value in starting processes to educate on the one side the public about the court processes themselves. Secondly about giving an opportunity for people to express themselves in relation to cases in which they are involved and I think they do that either through their lawyers or through the prosecutors but you do want that when a judicial officer gets to a point where a sentence is passed, all the facts have become known, they are on record so that when the Court of Appeal reads that record they are able to see what actually motivated the judicial officer and that is another thing about our system that it has those kinds of checks and balances that cases do go on appeal. But sensitivity training, training in diversity also and including sentencing policy, dealing with those kinds of things would assist. It would assist our judiciary in taking relevant factors only in terms of passing sentences. I won’t go so far as to say we need a penal code. There are arguments against sentences which are prescribed by Parliament. That is a different story. I don’t think you can have a strict checklist to say you have done this, a person has done this, this should be the sentence invariably. There could be broad guidelines maybe. I don’t know. I don’t know how far one has to go to render those kinds of guidelines unconstitutionally in particular matters but I think these are areas which need thorough debating and I am looking at legal organisations to actually engage the public and legal practitioners to actually engage the pubic in debating those issues because they are important issues and they are issues which affect people, ordinary people who maybe don’t understand why a particular sentence has been passed.
Dr van Heerden:
Thank you Chairperson. Deputy Chief Justice you mentioned in describing or discussing transformation amongst others that it goes beyond race and gender and that it actually goes to the substance of the Constitution and then you referred to matters such as dignity, equality and rule of law. Those values embodied in the first section of the Constitution. Now given that, given that and I can go along with that, given that do you foresee, and I know you are not a prophet but do you foresee that South African will become a country one day in which race will no longer be a determining factor for entering the legal profession so that we can encourage young people who are still at school to enter the legal profession where the law as such will be practised as long as they adhere to the substance of the Constitution?
Judge Langa:
The other values of the Constitution are non sexism and non racism, so yes, it is an ideal which I think we should all fight for.
Minister Mabandla:
Deputy Chief Justice let me begin by saying I am going to ask you questions like a politician does. I mean I am not going to ask in the manner in which my learned friends do because I am a politician but first let me begin by saying the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth told me how valuable your work has been in Fiji and I thought that I should mention it and say it is an indication of course of your qualification, your dedication and your excellent record as a professional. My first question is whether there is a common understanding in South Africa of what is the independence of the judiciary and whether there is a threat to the independence of the judiciary in our country and what indeed would constitute a threat to the judiciary as well as the legal sector in the country but also perhaps if you could just very honestly indicate, perhaps answer the question that Adv Moroka asked in the context of my questions and that is whether the transformation of the legal sector is the sole prerogative of the sector itself, the profession itself. If it is why there is such diversity of opinion within the sector. We have Advocates for Transformation. We have great divisions in fact and many who tell us that there has been no movement in transforming the sector. How do we go forward?
Judge Langa:
Thank you for the political questions. I have a particular understanding of the independence of the judiciary and I think it is an understanding which accords with my reading of the Constitution. The Constitution speaks of the independence of the judiciary. Chapter eight, the first section deals with that. The first few sections of that chapter. I believe, I don’t know if there is a common understanding of the independence of the judiciary but let me start at the tail end of that particular question. Your question was whether I perceive that independence to be under threat in South Africa. I know that what is involved in that question may be certain criticisms of judges emanating from members of society particularly powerful members of society. Maybe certain criticisms coming from members of Parliament and members … even maybe members of the Executive. From time to time there are some furores which we go through in South Africa but I think that what really happens I don’t think it is under threat because each time some statement is made somebody comes to clarify that statement and the clarification is always that ‘no that is not what I meant’ or the statement is denied when it is perceived as an attack on my understanding of the independence of the judiciary. So, no, I don’t think it is under threat and I hope that that stays so. The independence of the judiciary I think is creating an atmosphere which enables judges to do their work without fear, without prejudice, without favour. That is their own independence as judges. Their attitude to their profession as judges. I am not going to be influenced by anybody. I am going to decide issues on the basis of my understanding of the Constitution and the law. Nothing else with shift me from that regardless of who is on the receiving end. It may be the Government or it may be other powerful individuals. It may be ordinary people. So that is the psychological independence. There is also institutional independence and I think it is necessary to say this that in our discussions in the Southern African Judges Commission one is always aware that issues of independence are the text or sub text of our discussions. We are always aware. We are always aware that we should give moral support. We have had some incidents in the past where judges in other countries neighbouring us have been under attack and you are always aware that we should give moral support in order to safeguard their own psychological independence so that they deal with matters without fear or favour. So in a sense we play an exemplarily role, I won’t say a leading role because I don’t want to presume that we are more independent than other jurisdictions. I am speaking of the South African judiciary but we are always aware that we must play an exemplarily role and anything that happens to the South African judiciary by the way which might be perceived as a threat would have serious repercussions on our neighbouring countries. Now the second part of the independence is institutional independence and these are the arrangements around the judges. I went to some country and I was dealing with issues of law, their criminal procedures and things like that and I needed to know to get the views of their highest court so I spoke to the judges of the Supreme Court there which is their highest court. They were really not interested in this and until I raised the issue of corruption, just giving this as an example, raised the issue of corruption and they all became very animated and they said ‘why don’t you ask us what our salaries are’ and I said I didn’t want to ask them what their salaries were. If they wanted to tell me I would not be able to stop them and they were eager, they were competing at telling me what their salaries were and their salaries were dismal. They were very low. So in their own minds they connected the issues of corruption with the fact that they were paid very, very low salaries on which they found it difficult to live. Those kinds of things are institutional and they do affect the independence of judges because one aspect of independence is that he should not feel as a judge that you are beholden to anybody else. Now institutional independence also relates to arrangements. Conditions of service and arrangements around the workings of the courts. So when the Constitution speaks of the independence of the judiciary and it also goes on to say that all organs of State must assist this independence to ensure the effectiveness, the impartiality and independence and the effectiveness of what they have got to do. I interpret that to mean that we should all be very careful and create a space for judges to be independent. When a judge sits in her court or his court that judge should not feel that there is any pressure except the guidance of the Constitution and the law. Do I feel that that is under threat in South Africa? I think no. As I have said some statements get made from time to time, sometimes by people who are regarded as influential by others but almost invariably there have been clarifications, ‘no that is not what I meant’ or even denials. So while that is so I take comfort. I have never felt that the office of a judge is under threat in this kind of thing.
Can I just talk briefly about transformation of the legal sector.I did mention earlier that I think it is an issue which affects the whole South African community. I think … I must say this. I think the Government as the most powerful sector has a powerful role to play in pushing the boundaries, in getting us to where we want to get and I think a lot can be done and should be done and I think that there are things which are not being done which can be done. Those are matters of detail but they should be preceded by policy decisions I think. Now I don’t think it is the sole prerogative of the legal sector to achieve that or even of the Government alone to achieve that. I have indicated other sectors of the community also should be playing a role there. I think universities can do something about that and should. I think our business entities should do something about that and I think they should and I would like to emphasise that. I think the fact of the matter is that when you get into a South African Airways aircraft today it is still about 90% … the passengers are still about 90% white and 10% black. It is increasing. I remember I said sometime in … during the early nineties but my figures are changing. But that shows you the economy, what the South African economy is. A lot of these things are tied up with the economy but we should just realise that and get those people who can effect changes to do so. So I say the corporations ….. the economy is still skewed in South Africa, but because it is still skewed we should find strategies to defeat that as far as the development of black practitioners are concerned otherwise the legal sector will continue to be impoverished and women are going to be prejudiced.
Deputy Minister Hendricks:
Thank you Chief Justice. Deputy Chief Justice if you are appointed you are going to be right at the head of the judiciary in South Africa and I must say that I want to be comfortable sitting here that you know exactly how to deal with the issue of racism and sexism in the judiciary. Obviously not your role alone but I want you as the head or the person most probably who will head the judiciary to satisfy me that when you say positive steps that can be taken to deal with this issue you mentioned judicial training and education around sensitivity, around issues of diversity but I didn’t hear anything else besides that and that worries me. It worries me because this judicial education and training is not compulsory. It worries me because we have done it for the past ten years and has it worked? Ten years later shouldn’t we be looking at other means to deal with this issue of racism and sexism when it rears its ugly head in the judiciary and that is my only question to you?
Judge Langa:
I remember that when I was at the last Judicial Service Commission the Deputy Minister asked some of the most difficult questions around issues of transformation and I see that this is proceeding. Anyway, yes. Fortunately the issue of racism is not an issue which the Chief Justice is dealing with alone. Obviously the Chief Justice will play a leading role. Leading in the discussions. Leading in the form of strategies and leading in the connection with the general public also in communicating what is being done and what should be done. But you want to know what I would do? What I would do is not different from what is being done now and it is not different from what is being discussed now. Apart from issues of judicial training and I can only be general as far as this is concerned. Judicial training and training in diversity and so on which I think incidentally I think all judges should avail themselves of it. What normally happens when a facility like that is made available people might exclude themselves by not availing themselves of that but if everyone else does that those who don’t do that will feel isolated and I think that would be an encouragement itself. How compulsory one should make that, my own sense is that I would urge everyone and people who do go to those courses …. I would like to go to one of those courses. I have been to some of those courses but I think it is so useful that you get to know your prejudices and so on and so forth. But this of course must be available to all the judges. Now the other strategies. I think a very effective strategy is what the judges of the Constitutional Court have done. They have done it twice now. They did it some years after coming together. They did it again. That is simply for judges in a particular division. All of them. If that is feasible. To sit together. To set aside some time and sit together and just talk about these sensitivities and point fingers at one another and say you are racist. You remember one day you said this and this and this to me and the other one will say ‘did I’? ‘Yes it hurt me badly because I interpreted it as racism’. But it is a culture I am talking about. A culture of communication and a culture of confronting things. Once it is known that this is allowed, this can happen and people should approach this in a spirit of humility and in a spirit which says look, I don’t know everything and I don’t know the impact of some of the things that I say myself, some people may get hurt. Once that kind of culture takes root I think we will have got somewhere. I think fighting racism is a process. If I could snap my finger I would do that if that would have the desired result. But it is. It has got to be a process because as I say we have histories and fighting sexism is the same because we have a particular history. We have traditions and so on. We keep on learning. Now what I would encourage the judiciary to do, all the judicial officers in fact is to inculcate in themselves that sense that everyone needs education. We all need to keep on improving ourselves. Improving our skills, improving our competence but also improving who we are in terms of dealing with these kinds of things and zero tolerance to racism is part of that. But then judges are leaders you see. They can all afford to confront each other when this kind of thing rears its head and I think that is what they should do.
Deputy Minister Hendricks:
I think the challenges, the fact that some of the members, some members of the Bench actually do not subscribe to judicial training and education. They have gone out publicly to say so and it could just be that is where most of the prejudices reside with those that aren’t going to avail themselves to this kind of training. That is a comment. You can respond to it.
Judge Langa:
My response would be these are matters which the Heads of the different courts talk about when they get together. That is the first comment but secondly those Heads of courts would know who are willing and who are unwilling. My sense has been that although the issue of judicial training was unpopular when it was first mooted, when it was first undertaken, its popularity … people, judges have come to accept it. They have come to accept in general, there might be exceptions. They have come to accept that judicial training does not mean you don’t know, you are not qualified and that you need to be taught. But what it means is giving an opportunity for everyone to improve themselves and I think that acceptance is, if it is not almost 100%, it is gaining ground and we must just keep on pushing to make it 100% acceptance.
Judge Chaskalson:
Deputy Chief Justice I think earlier when you were talking you mentioned that complaints concerning racism and sexism should be raised immediately that they happen. I am not sure whether you indicated the structures which will be in place for that to be done both in regard to the profession and in regard to the judiciary itself. Would you like to say anything about that before we part?
Judge Langa:
I left that to the Chief Justice. Really what I am talking about are proposals which are part of the work which is in progress at the moment. What is going to happen and what is already happening in some … at least one division, is to establish committees in each division. A committee which is going to be a representative committee, representative in terms of course race and gender to deal with the local issues which arise in each particular division. So this is something which is concrete and we are all going to our divisions, our courts, to those who haven’t established those committees to establish those committees but it does not really end there …. and of course the committees will be chaired by the Judge President of the particular division. The Judge President is part of the Heads of court. But apart from that we believe very much and we are going to do this. It has implications for resources, funding and things like that. Keep on having conferences, seminars where those issues are talked about but the main thing is that people in a particular area will have access to the committees that I have spoken about and they can lodge their complaints there. Complaints about the judiciary in order to deal with issues with racism. These will develop because our consultations are still going on. We are always looking for more effective means of dealing with this.
Judge Chaskalson:
Well Deputy Chief Justice I think we have almost missed our lunch. Thank you for your open responses to the questions which have been raised. Is there anything you would like to say before we close the proceedings?
Judge Langa:
Apart from the fact that I must have broken the record for the longest interview, I would like to say this. I would like to thank the Judicial Service Commission for affording me the opportunity of showing my face here and being interviewed. I regard it as a great honour to have been nominated to occupy the position of Chief Justice. If it happens I know it has serious, very serious challenges. It is a position which requires much industry, a lot of energy. It is a position as we all know also requires a great deal of wisdom but I have no doubt with the support of people, my colleagues in all the courts and all those who are in leadership positions, the Judicial Service Commission itself, it is do-able. Not only do-able I think I am conscious of the fact that it is not just a position but it is an opportunity to serve the country in a particular capacity. I started off talking about separation of powers. To that extent ordinary people are entitled to know that there is stability in that particular sector and that would always remain to be my concern and the community always would want to rely on the judges to effectively do what they are supposed to do and that is the delivery of justice and that would also be a deep concern for me but thank you very much.
Judge Chaskalson:
Deputy Chief Justice thank you very much. We will now adjourn.
- The Constitutional Court has made reasonable effort to ensure this is a proper reflection of the candidate's interview with the Judicial Service Commission. However, the nature of the recording and transcription process means that accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
|
