[ad_1]
The Judicial Conduct Committee ordered Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng to apologize for violating judicial ethical standards by participating in a webinar with the Chief Rabbi of South Africa. (Photo: Alet Pretorius / GALLO IMAGES) Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng. (Photo: Alet Pretorius / GALLO IMAGES)
An explanation of the Judicial Conduct Committee’s ruling on the “political controversy” comments made by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng.
First published by Ground.
The Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) has ordered Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng to unconditionally apologize for “engaging in a political controversy” through remarks he made during an online webinar hosted by The Jerusalem Post in June 2020 and later in a prayer meeting.
The ruling came after three organizations, Africa 4 Palestine, SA Boycott Disinvestments and Sanctions Coalition and the Women’s Cultural Group, filed complaints against him for violating judicial ethical rules for participating in the webinar with the Chief Rabbi of South Africa. Read the sentence here.
The allegations also concerned a later comment the Chief Justice made at a prayer meeting in which he declined to apologize for what he said.
The JCC is part of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) that is in charge of processing complaints against judges. The JSC website explains: “Complaints against judges who violate the Code of Judicial Conduct must first be reported to the JSC Clerk which is located within the Office of the Chief Justice. The Code of Judicial Conduct establishes the ethical and professional standards required of every judge ”.
The matter was resolved by Judge Phineas Mojapelo.
In his ruling, Mojapelo said that the questions asked during the webinar required the Chief Justice to comment on matters related to the diplomatic relationship between South Africa and Israel, which was “clearly political territory.”
He was asked to declare whether he agreed with his country’s foreign policy towards Israel. “He cannot enter that field without entering the field of political activity, and he cannot differ from those in charge of that policy, without controversializing the political leaders in that field,” Judge Mojapelo said.
“He replied that while the laws are binding on him, he said, like any other citizen, he has the right to criticize South Africa’s policies or even to suggest that change is necessary.
“Like it or not, the Chief Justice is not like any other South African citizen. He is the head of the judiciary and is subject to the restrictions of that position, including the ethical standards that govern the conduct of each and every judge. He is subject to these restrictions of his position in his official and private capacity, ”said Judge Mojapelo.
The Chief Justice said that at the time he made the remarks, he had been fully aware of South Africa’s foreign policy position on the Israel-Palestine conflict and yet had criticized it and suggested what should be changed. .
“There is no room to argue that their conduct was unintentional or grossly negligent,” Mojapelo wrote.
What compounded the matter was the comment he made when asked to retract what he had said in the webinar.
At a later prayer meeting, he declined, saying there was nothing to apologize for.
Even in his response to the JCC, he repeated: “I support my refusal to retract or apologize for any part of what I said during the webinar. Even if 50 million people marched every day for ten years for me to do so, I would not apologize. If I perish, I perish ”.
Judge Mojapelo said he repeated these words at a time when he knew the committee had been investigating the complaints for three months.
“It was an opportunity for him, as the leader of the judiciary, to publicly declare his confidence in the committee’s statutory processes. His statement did the opposite, exuding a moralistic view that he would only apologize if he believed he was wrong.
“Members of the judiciary have a duty individually and collectively to publicly accept their own peer review process and to strengthen their credibility. Instead, he showed his contempt for the process by flaunting the fact that he would never apologize for his conduct, even if 50 million people marched for ten years. “
Judge Mojapelo said it appeared that the Chief Justice was being “blatantly defiant” and that it was important, in order to keep the public image of the judiciary in its rightful place, that it be ordered to apologize and retract it. he said at the webinar and prayer meeting.
The JCC order
Mojapelo’s full order says:
The defendant CJ will issue an apology and retraction drawn up as follows:
Apology and retraction
I, Mogoeng Mogoeng, Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa, hereby unconditionally apologize for my involvement in a political controversy through my statements in the webinar organized by The Jerusalem Post on June 23, 2020, in which I participated.
I hereby retract and unreservedly withdraw the following statement I made later or other words to the same effect: “I endorse my refusal to retract or apologize for any part of what I said during the webinar. Even if 50 million people marched every day for 10 years for me to do so, I would not apologize. If I perish, I perish ”.
I reaffirm my recognition to the statutory authority of the Judicial Conduct Committee of the Judicial Service Commission established in terms of Part 11 of JSC Law 9 of 1994 to decide on any complaint of alleged judicial misconduct against me and all judges in the Republic of the South. Africa.
The defendant CJ must, within ten (10) days of this decision, read the previous apology and retraction in a meeting of acting judges of the Constitutional Court and deliver a copy of it under his signature to the OCJ and the media. of communication in the normal way in which the Constitutional Court and the OCJ issue press releases.
GroundView: Now what?
By GroundUp Editors
The Chief Justice, with only a few months to go before he retires, now faces an unprecedented sanction. It could lengthen the matter and appeal the ruling, in which case the full JCC will have to rule on the matter.
If you choose to defy the order, you will almost certainly have to resign, and that may be insufficient to avoid an additional penalty. Even if you abide by the decision and apologize, it is unlikely that you will continue to have the confidence of the judiciary.
And this wasn’t the only controversial issue he got into that he could be penalized for. His questioning of the efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines is also the subject of a judicial complaint by an advocacy group called the African Alliance. DM
