The EFF has condemned the Helen Suzman Foundation’s (HSF) legal case against party leader Julius Malema, describing it as “politically motivated”.
The foundation has reportedly launched an application in the Western Cape High Court seeking to challenge Malema’s participation in the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
In its court papers, the HSF argued that parliament has a constitutional duty to determine whether Malema is fit and proper to serve on the JSC, citing his conduct and past comments regarding certain judicial decisions.
“This application is a dangerous and dishonest attempt to redefine democratic criticism as constitutional misconduct,” said EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo. He added that the excuse of removing a member of parliament from the JSC based on their views about judges and judicial outcomes is anti-democratic and seeks to impose a culture of silence.
Malema is one of six MPs representing parliament on the JSC. During the commission’s public interviews for judicial office, Malema has frequently subjected interviewees to tough, often confrontational questioning.
He has also constantly criticised the South African judiciary. After his recent firearm conviction, Malema publicly attacked magistrate Twanet Olivier, labelling her “racist” and “incompetent”.
However, the EFF maintained that criticising the judiciary is a constitutionally protected right.
“The EFF rejects the myth that the judiciary exists above criticism. In any constitutional democracy worthy of the name, criticism of the judiciary is protected under freedom of expression and forms part of necessary democratic accountability.
“Judges are not beyond scrutiny, particularly in a society where the judiciary has increasingly become a site of political contestation, selective morality and inconsistency in the application of justice.”
The red berets further argued that the lawsuit comes at a time when judicial institutions are avoiding accountability. Drawing a comparison to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal, the EFF accused the foundation of hypocrisy and having double standards.
“Throughout this scandal, the Helen Suzman Foundation maintained a deafening silence. They did not rush to court demanding accountability from Ramaphosa. They did not question the integrity of institutions that shielded him. They did not express concern when parliament was manipulated to suppress impeachment proceedings.”
The party also accused the foundation of institutional overreach, claiming it is attempting to use the lawsuit to fundamentally redesign the framework governing the JSC.
“This is an alarming example of institutional overreach by an unelected liberal pressure group seeking to use the courts to fundamentally reshape constitutional bodies according to its own ideological preferences.
“The Helen Suzman Foundation is effectively inviting the judiciary to assume powers that belong to parliament and democratic political processes, while simultaneously claiming to defend the constitutional separation of powers.”
The EFF said it would not be silenced.
“The EFF will not be intimidated by court applications sponsored by liberal pressure groups acting in defence of political and economic elites. We will continue to expose corruption, challenge judicial inconsistency and defend the constitutional right of South Africans to speak openly and critically about all institutions of power, including the judiciary itself.”
TimesLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.