<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>South Africa is widely regarded as a model of a constitutional democracy on the African continent. This is partly because of the progressive Constitution adopted in 1996 and the fact that the country has consistently managed to conduct democratic, free and fair elections since the end of apartheid in the early 1990s. The sustainability of South Africa's constitutional democracy rests on the ability of the judiciary to ensure compliance with the constitution. The competence and credibility of the judiciary hinge on the appointment of judges who are able to reflect the diversity of the country, act without fear or favor, and develop a jurisprudence which creates and deepens constitutionalism. Judicial independence is a key component of the credibility of the judiciary. The inconsistent application of norms and standards when selecting and appointing judges tends to undermine the credibility of the appointments process.</p>
<p>The process of judicial selection and appointment in South Africa begins with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) advertising the existing judicial vacancies. After that, the JSC shortlists candidates who are then interviewed. Following these interviews, the JSC shortlists candidates for possible appointment by the President. A review of the transcripts of interviews conducted by the JSC from April 2014 to October 2019 shows patterns of discrepancies in the types of questions which candidates vying for the same judicial position are required to answer. This Article explains the process followed by the JSC, and then identifies and analyzes the discrepancies in the process employed by the JSC. The Article then demonstrates the negative impact which the discrepancies have had on both the quality of the judicial selection process and the quality of candidates shortlisted for appointment. Furthermore, this Article makes recommendations on how South Africa can draw from international norms and standards as well as good practices from comparative jurisdictions, to enhance consistency and fairness in its judicial selection and appointments processes.</p>
</abstract>

South Africa is widely regarded as a model of a constitutional democracy on the African continent. This is partly because of the progressive Constitution adopted in 1996 and the fact that the country has consistently managed to conduct democratic, free and fair elections since the end of apartheid in the early 1990s. The sustainability of South Africa's constitutional democracy rests on the ability of the judiciary to ensure compliance with the constitution. The competence and credibility of the judiciary hinge on the appointment of judges who are able to reflect the diversity of the country, act without fear or favor, and develop a jurisprudence which creates and deepens constitutionalism. Judicial independence is a key component of the credibility of the judiciary. The inconsistent application of norms and standards when selecting and appointing judges tends to undermine the credibility of the appointments process.
The process of judicial selection and appointment in South Africa begins with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) advertising the existing judicial vacancies. After that, the JSC shortlists candidates who are then interviewed. Following these interviews, the JSC shortlists candidates for possible appointment by the President. A review of the transcripts of interviews conducted by the JSC from April 2014 to October 2019 shows patterns of discrepancies in the types of questions which candidates vying for the same judicial position are required to answer. This Article explains the process followed by the JSC, and then identifies and analyzes the discrepancies in the process employed by the JSC. The Article then demonstrates the negative impact which the discrepancies have had on both the quality of the judicial selection process and the quality of candidates shortlisted for appointment. Furthermore, this Article makes recommendations on how South Africa can draw from international norms and standards as well as good practices from comparative jurisdictions, to enhance consistency and fairness in its judicial selection and appointments processes.

Judical Appointments in South Africa

British Journal of American Legal Studies

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

{"article-title":"Judical Appointments in South Africa"}

South Africa is widely regarded as a model of a constitutional democracy on the African continent. This is partly because of the progressive Constitution...

Mean Absolute Deviation: 17.4 minutes
count	97.000000
mean	41.164948
std	22.469739
min	3.000000
25%	25.000000
50%	36.000000
75%	52.000000
max	114.000000
Kurtosis: 3.5580803683270497 (Normal = 3)

Average Time of Interview by Date:
Date
Apr-16	32.611111
Apr-17	23.000000
Apr-18	37.100000
Oct-16	56.428571
Oct-17	33.250000
Number of Interviews each day:
Date
Apr-16	18
Apr-17	5
Apr-18	10
Oct-16	28
Oct-17	4

Judical Appointments in South Africa

Publié en ligne: 18 mai 2022

Pages: 457 - 478

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2021-0013

Mots clés
Judicial Selection in South Africa, Judicial Service Commission, Lilongwe Principles and Guidelines

© 2021 Alison Tilley et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

j.bjals-2021-0013.tab.001

j.bjals-2021-0013.tab.002

Judical Appointments in South Africa

Publié en ligne: 18 mai 2022

Pages: 457 - 478

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2021-0013

Mots clésJudicial Selection in South Africa, Judicial Service Commission, Lilongwe Principles and Guidelines

© 2021 Alison Tilley et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

j.bjals-2021-0013.tab.001

j.bjals-2021-0013.tab.002

Mots clés
Judicial Selection in South Africa, Judicial Service Commission, Lilongwe Principles and Guidelines