17th Amendment Act saw a steady rise in new applications to the court: Madlanga

Constitutional Court Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga says that the Constitution’s 17th Amendment Act of 2013, which expanded the apex court’s jurisdiction to matters of general public importance, saw a steady rise in new applications to the court.

Madlanga was answering questions during his interview at the Judicial Services Commission (SC) in Sandton, Johannesburg, regarding frequent public criticism on the excessive delays in Constitutional Court judgments.

He says new applications to the Constitutional Court have steadily risen from 200 in August 2013 to nearly 400 last year.

Madlanga says he has been part of a process to revise the system by which judges of the Constitutional Court work and says it is his vision that judgments be delivered within 6 months going forward.

He says, “You have this deluge of applications but the time has not stopped for you to comment on other colleagues’ post-hearing notes. Remember it’s 11 of us, you must comment on 11 post-hearing notes that are in circulation and once drafts come in you must draft judgments you must comment on the 10 draft judgments and as I have tried to emphasise you have this deluge of applications that have come in at the same time.”

Race

Madlanga says there must be an attempt at ensuring inclusivity of different sections of society within the Constitutional Court.

Madlanga was responding to the Judicial Services Commission’s question about there not being a single white judge appointed to the apex court in 12 years.

“The Constitutional Court is not categorical that you must just have that kind of composition but it is giving an indication that there must be an attempt at attaining that and as I said a positive image is to try as much as possible to go in that sort of direction.”

Judges salaries

Madlanga has also told the JSC that he would want to study the arguments in the debate on the salary of judges before giving his view on the matter.

He says his colleagues who have opened the debate may have valid concerns.

Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Appeal Xola Petse asked Madlanga the question on the salaries.

Petse told Madlanga that a section of the Section does not allow the benefits of judges to be reduced.

Petse asked, “There is a sentiment out there that if you do not raise the salary of judges incrementally given the ravages of inflation, this is in effect tantamount to reducing their salaries in breach of section 176(3) thereby in effect impinging on their independents. Do you have any thought on that topic?”

Madlanga responded by saying, “It is not a subject that I have applied my mind to. And I would imagine that as lawyers, my colleagues would have applied their minds thoroughly to it and come up with concrete arguments. Before I take a particular view outside of the just the statement that would have just put to me, I would prefer to first have an assimilate the arguments on which this view is premised.”

JSC Interview | Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga:

Additional reporting by Mercedes Besent.