Zuma appoints new judges

MickeyD

MickeyD

RIP
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
139,095
Reaction score
432
Location
Nelson Mandela Bay
President Jacob Zuma has appointed new judges to the high court, labour court and the electoral court, the Presidency said on Sunday.

Spokesman Mac Maharaj said advocate Igna Tersia Stretch, SC was appointed as judge of the Eastern Cape High Court, Bisho, with effect from December 2.

Segopotje Sheila Mphahlele was appointed as a judge of the High Court in Johannesburg, with effect from December 2;

- advocate Albertus Johannes Bam, SC, as a judge of the North Gauteng High Court Pretoria, with effect from December 2,

- advocate Maria Mabel Jansen, SC, as a judge of the High Court in Johannesburg, with effect from December 2,

- advocate Nicoline Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen, SC, as a judge of the High Court in Pretoria, with effect from December 2,

Somaganthie Naidoo was appointed as a judge of the Free State High Court, Bloemfontein, with effect from January 1, 2014; and Nolwazi Penelope Boqwana as a judge of the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town, with effect from December 2.

"The President has also in terms of Section 153(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995... appointed Mr Justice Pule Lazarus Tlaletsi, a Judge of the Northern Cape High Court, as deputy judge president of the Labour Court, with effect from December 2."

Sungaree Pather was appointed as a member of the Electoral Court for a period of four years, with effect from December 2.

Source : Sapa /mm/ks
 
Just like that? Another Mugabe dictator in the making?
 
R13... said:
Not just like that but im sure you know that. You really ought to put some thought into your posts here in CA.
Click to expand...

Must I take your word for it? You missed the question marks? I'd rather wait for McD or Paul to explain the reality and context to me thanks! :p

PS: Do not flame me, I do not trust Zuma as IMHO everything he does are for anterior motives and or for private gain and to make sure he covers his tracks well?
 
Last edited:
R13... said:
You don't need to take my word but maybe be quiet when you have no idea what you're talking about?
Click to expand...

I edited my post. I asked questions and maybe you should rather shut up and leave it to the experts to answer when someone ask questions! :p
 
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/jsc-appoints-7-new-female-judges/

JSC appoints 7 new female judges

Oct 17th, 2013 by Pierre De Vos.
JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION

PRESS RELEASE



16 October 2013



The Judicial Service Commission has concluded interviews of Judges to fill vacancies in the Bench



During the period 07-10 October 2013, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) conducted interviews in Cape Town for the vacant Judges’ positions in the various divisions of the High Court. Following the conclusion of the interviews, the Chief Justice met with the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr J G Zuma on 15 October 2013 and presented the JSC’s recommendations as follows:

1. Eastern Cape Division (One vacancy)
The JSC advertised one vacancy in the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court and three candidates were shortlisted and interviewed for one vacancy. The JSC has recommended that the President should appoint Adv I T Stretch SC (Ms) as a Judge of the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court:

2. Electoral Court
There was one vacancy advertised by the JSC and one candidate was shortlisted and interviewed. The JSC has recommended that the President should appoint Ms S Pather as a Judge of the Electoral Court:

3. Free State Division (One vacancy)
The JSC advertised one vacancy in the Free State Division of the High Court and five candidates were shortlisted and interviewed for one vacancy. The JSC has recommended that the President should appoint Ms S Naidoo to the Free State Division of the High Court.

4. Labour and Labour Appeal Court
The JSC advertised a single vacancy of Deputy Judge President and one candidate was shortlisted and interviewed. The JSC decided to recommend that the President should appoint Judge P L Tlaletsi as Deputy Judge President of the Labour and Labour Appeal Courts.

5. Labour Courts
The JSC advertised a single vacancy in the Labour Courts and two candidates were shortlisted. The JSC interviewed one candidate and decided not to recommend any candidate to the President.



6. Gauteng Division
The JSC advertised four vacancies in the Gauteng Division of the High Court. Six candidates were shortlisted and interviewed for these positions. The JSC has recommended that the President should appoint the following candidates as Judges of the Gauteng Division of the High Court.

Adv A J Bam SC

Adv M M Jansen SC (Ms)

Adv N J Van Niewenhuizen SC (Ms)

Ms S S Mphahlele

7. Western Cape Division
The JSC advertised one vacancy in the Western Cape Division of the High Court. Four candidates were shortlisted and interviewed for these vacant positions. The JSC has recommended that the President should appoint Ms N P Boqwana as a Judge of the Western Cape Division of the High Court.

Of all the nine recommended candidates, seven of them are women. This serves as a clear indication of the JSC’s commitment to the provisions of 174(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The JSC still wishes to encourage the legal fraternity and the broader South African public to encourage and nominate more women who are fit and proper for judicial appointment. It is only in as a result of such nominations that the JSC will be table to discharge its constitutional mandate of transforming the Judiciary to reflect the demographics of our population as enunciated in section 174(2) of the Constitution.

Issued by the JSC

Adv Ntsebeza SC
Click to expand...
 
Seriously said:
Must I take your word for it? You missed the question marks? I'd rather wait for McD or Paul to explain the reality and context to me thanks! :p

PS: Do not flame me, I do not trust Zuma as IMHO everything he does are for anterior motives and or for private gain and to make sure he covers his tracks well?
Click to expand...

A friend of mine was appointed at a high court judge many years back.
Another is currently a sitting judge president - it is a long process involving many people.
 
Can't see anything that stands out poorly in the selection. Its a conservative appointment made up primarily of silks.
The bigger problem is the fact that there is a general backlog for the appointment of judges and the absolute disaster that is the purported superior courts legislation
 
Thanks guys, all is well then. Makes more sense now!
 
Few questions:

Advocate Maria Mabel Jansen, SC, as a judge of the High Court in Johannesburg, with effect from December 2,
Click to expand...

1. How can she throw out the FF+ e-toll case, without hearing them on day 1?
2. How can she state this: “The matter is scrapped from the roll for lack of urgency,” said Judge Maria Jansen.

This is and should only be applicable to the ANC which is in a manner our only constitutional issue... and the EFF:

Jansen said the constitutional issues related to the case were complicated, and it had implications for the separation of powers.
Click to expand...

So the case was not heard, seems she had a motive.
 
Paul Hjul said:
Can't see anything that stands out poorly in the selection. Its a conservative appointment made up primarily of silks.
The bigger problem is the fact that there is a general backlog for the appointment of judges and the absolute disaster that is the purported superior courts legislation
Click to expand...

What's the problem with the superior courts bill? The high court divisions should have moved to modern provincial lines years ago.
 
Watch out a silk, stand back, make space for the ego ahead.
 
Mila said:
How is it not urgent? 95% of people doesn't want etolls.
Click to expand...
because I have massively long post to go over on what is wrong with the Superior Courts Bill I am going to briefly and without checking the authorities (so working just on the Rules as they pour out of my head):
Urgency is a fairly complex and touch and go matter although on the whole I think it often comes down to the obscenity standard - you know it when you see it. The importance or interest in a matter doesn't make it urgent and there is certainly enough precedent of urgent cases that skirted around being trivial - a case where a mother sought an order directing her ex-husband to return the daughters horse by 9am the following morning or have the sheriff empowered to use force to reclaim the horse comes to mind -

The Uniform Rules provide measures and means by which procedural law can be efficient and fair and give full effect to various concepts and notions underlying the jurisdiction of courts (requirements for service and so on) and anybody with a clear right can secure relief on motion to the court but you need to bring a Notice of Motion and founding papers to the court after serving same by the sheriff on the respondents. The respondents are afforded no less than 5 days to indicate an intention to oppose and a further 10 days to file opposing papers and so on under Rule 6. Once papers have been traded a matter can be set down as an opposed motion. All and all this process takes about 2 months to get to court and you may have a delay to an actual court date.

The Rules however do not apply if there is urgency but urgency is measured in degrees and not absolutes and there are practice directions and precedents and all sorts of dynamics that a person gets some sense of when you actually working with them (urgent applications are incredibly frightening and stressful if handled in person) and it is in my view one of the most important components of a section of the Bars work - and very much is a reason for a divided bar. The actual urgency rule (6)(12) is quite sparse and most divisions have practice direction requiring certificates of urgency and what not. In the end however the court needs to be convinced that the matters urgency justified your departures from the ordinary rules - particularly the shortening of times.

I do believe that FF+ went into court knowing that the urgency threshold would be difficult to muster, but I believe they were in a bind because if they failed to approach the court they could land with a horse bolting problem.

With all respect to the judge I believe she exercised her discretion poorly. In this case the very fabric of constitutionalism and the Rule of Law comes to the foreground. If the Minister acted ultra vires (a dirty word I know, especially after Pharmacutical Manufacturers) the the courts should not hesitate to follow the maxims of Liversidge (approved of in Zuma v NDPP) and that if one looks at Oudekraal and the SCAs judgment on e-tolling the decision must be set aside for want of legality at the earliest opportunity.
I believe that alternate relief in the form of setting the matter to the ordinary role such as to enable enough time for pleadings and so on and making a declaratory order that if the court finds the introduction unlawful all persons adversely affected shall be entitled to full restitution by SANRAL would have been appropriate.
However her decision is in my view (and IANAL) fully justified in law, not appeallable and conservative. It is unfortunate that the inference can reasonably be drawn that Zuma wants judges with a particular mindset that is not in favour of pushing the parameters of judicial authority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X