Judges guilty of selective justice
It has become customary for judges to use disparaging language against the person of the public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane when expressing a legal opinion to deliver a verdict.
This tendency is coloured by offensive prejudices and is completely alien in judicial proceedings. The judge of the North Gauteng High Court not only continued with the denigration of Mkhwebane but sustained the personal attacks by public enterprises minister Pravin Gordhan on her integrity without cause.
Gordhan stooped too low to the point of contempt, without dealing with unethical issues accentuated in the remedial actions. This smacks of selective justice.
For instance, a court found Hlaudi Motsoeneng's appointment irregular by virtue of him being at the helm of the SABC without a matric certificate. The same judge ruled that in the appointment of Ivan Pillay at Sars it was irrelevant whether he had matric or not. That's fundamentally flawed and inconsistent.
If judges fail to exercise discretion and guide affairs with decorum, they are going to lose credibility in society. These things create a fertile ground for anarchy and social paralysis engineered by those embroiled in factional politics.
Thus, there's a growing perception that certain judges are biased and politically captured. It's not healthy for our democracy, for it runs the risk of dividing society. It doesn't inspire confidence.
The same can be said of the inconsistency with regard to the remedial actions of the public protector which were understood to be legally binding, without a caveat.
Morgan Phaahla, Vosloorus, Ekurhuleni