IT'S utterly shameful that judges do not want to disclose their private interests and those of their immediate families. They are rejecting proposed regulations that seek to guide and enforce such public disclosures. What are they hiding?

It is the least one would have expected from the ultimate defenders of our Constitution.

But it appears we might have deluded ourselves in thinking that the leadership crisis starts in Parliament and ends in the national executive.

The reality is that it has hit the judiciary in the most spectacularly fashion: the country's judges are ganging up in defence of unnecessary secrecy.

In rejecting the proposed regulations, they have gone to the extent of mounting arguments that are far from compelling.

Appearing before a Parliamentary ad-hoc committee on behalf of the country's judges on Thursday, Gauteng High Court Judge President Bernard Ngoepe and Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Robert Nugent argued the proposed regulations would amount to a "major invasion" of privacy.

They also claimed that it would discourage advocates from accepting invitations to act as judges.

Ngoepe has said that at any given time his court depends on senior advocates to act as judges. These advocates, he said, would find it difficult to disclose information about their private legal practice.

He may well have a point here. But why would advocates accept an appointment of public responsibilities if they wouldn't declare to the public whether they are faithful to the public? It is in the public interest that they declare.

The regulations are meant to ensure openness and accountability of judicial officers. They are a crucial instrument meant to protect and strengthen judges' independence.

Interestingly, Judge Nugent has even threatened to take the matter to the Constitutional Court. What a case that would be! The Constitutional Court judges would have vested interest in the matter, as they too are set to be affected by the regulations.

Notwithstanding the many problematic proposals the ANC-led government has made about the judiciary - including an attempt to "review" the judicial performance of courts - no rational person can challenge the disclosure regulations.

Judges are already required by law to relinquish their commercial interests upon appointment to the Bench. However, they are not required to disclose the private interests of their spouses and their immediate family members.

It is common practice for judges to accept invitations to lecture in prestigious universities abroad to supplement their income, a high court judge once told me.

All they need to do is simply apply to the minister of justice to participate in extra-income generation activities or any other activities outside their judicial work.

Justice Minister Jeff Radebe is on the right track when it comes to the new regulations. There are good reasons why judges should declare their interests publicly.

Firstly, it is for the same reasons the president, ministers and members of Parliament declare theirs. It is meant to avoid conflict between their public duties and their private interests.

The public pays judges and public representatives for their supposed utmost commitment to public duty.

Anything else they do while in public office as a result of the positions they hold, the ultimate employer, the public, has to know.

Secondly, as arbitrators of societal disputes and vanguards of the rule of law, judges are not only supposed to be independent, but they have to be seen to be.

Thirdly, the much vaunted independence of the judiciary shouldn't only about ensuring that the executive and Parliament do not interfere with court's decisions.

It should also be about shielding judges from being interfered with by private interests emanating from their other activities.

Fourthly, because they are accountable to the Constitution, it is imperative that judges are not ethically questionable.

There is nothing wrong with debating the regulations and perhaps finding the best way to facilitate disclosure to minimise potential harm to individual judges.

But outright rejection of the disclosure principle is too extreme. In rejecting the regulations, the judges are out of step.

ANC MP Amos Matila accused some of the judges of rejecting the regulations because they cannot explain their wealth. This is a serious charge. But whether it is correct is irrelevant. It could be borne out of perception.

What is important is that judges must reject the charge to protect their integrity and that of the judicial system. The only way to do it is for them to disclose their private interests.