By Barbara Whittle
In September, the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) raised its serious concern about the unwarranted, scurrilous and personal attacks on the Public protector, advocate Thuli Madonsela, particularly as regards her Nkandla report ‘Secure in Comfort’, and against Pretoria High Court Judge Thokozile Masipa following the latter’s judgment in the Oscar Pistorius matter.
As regards the Public Protector, LSSA Co-chairpersons Max Boqwana and Ettienne Barnard noted in a press release: ‘It is unacceptable that the Public Protector, advocate Thuli Madonsela, should be the target of undeserved attacks – even of a personal nature – and that her integrity and that of her Office and staff is questioned at every turn. The Office of the Public Protector is carrying out its mandate in terms of the Constitution. Her Office is a Chapter Nine institution which is independent and subject only to the Constitution and the law.’
They added that the Constitution enjoins all organs of state – including the executive, the legislature and the judiciary – to assist and protect the Public Protector.
‘Persons or organisations that have problems or disagree with her reports should follow the proper legal route to challenge the reports and call for them to be reviewed. Only a court of law can review her reports. However, such organisations and persons must guard against involving the Office of the Public Protector in unnecessary litigation as this will add to the financial and human resource burdens of her Office, which is already inundated with investigations on behalf of the public,’ they said.
Aligning itself with the serious concern raised by a number of legal organisations including the Legal Resources Centre, Section27, the Centre for Child Law and the Black Lawyers Association regarding the threats and personal attacks made against Judge Masipa, particularly comments made regarding the judge’s race and gender, the Co-chairpersons said: ‘The Pistorius matter was a high-profile case that played itself out in the glare of the local and international media, and people are free to disagree with the judgment. Judgments by our courts are not above scrutiny; but judgments of the court must be respected and scrutiny must be informed, constructive and based on sound legal principles. For that reason we have an appeal procedure in our courts which allows parties – who are of the view that a different judge or court may come to a different conclusion – to apply for leave to appeal. However, personal attacks on the judicial officer and the legal practitioners are not acceptable or appropriate in a country where the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary and of the legal profession are paramount.’
They added that ‘judicial officers – judges and magistrates – and legal practitioners must be allowed to perform their duties without fear of attacks on their persons, safety or work environment.’
Compiled by Barbara Whittle, communication manager, Law Society of South Africa, barbara@lssa.org.za
This article was first published in De Rebus in 2014 (Oct) DR 22.
