War of Justices: Zondo versus Madlanga
A LEAKED internal complaint has revealed tension between top justices at the Constitutional Court
The Sunday Independent has evidence pointing to the battle for the control of the judiciary following Mogoeng Mogoeng’s departure as then Chief Justice of South Africa.
Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, who deputised for Mogoeng, took over the reins and acted in the role before he was officially appointed to the position of Chief Justice by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
On July 24, 2022, former judiciary spokesperson Nathi Mncube wrote to the head of the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) Meme Sejosengwe, and alleged that she had said that the then Acting Chief Justice Zondo was not happy with the inclusion of Justice Madlanga in some judicial meetings.
“On 8 December 2021, Mr Mncube was advised by Adv Marelise Potgieter that the Secretary-General wanted a Teams meeting to discuss the 2020/21 Judiciary Report that was due for release on 10 December 2021. The meeting took place that afternoon as scheduled.
“In the meeting, Ms. Sejosengwe indicated that the Acting Chief Justice Zondo, as he then was, had expressed his disquiet about the inclusion of Justice Madlanga in the draft programme for the Judiciary Day event.
“There were other items discussed during the meeting about the actual report. However, Ms Sejosengwe took issue with the fact that Mr Mncube and Ms Van Niekerk included Justice Madlanga In the programme.
“She mentioned that Acting Chief Justice Zondo and JP Leeuw, as chairperson of the Heads of Court Judicial Accountability Committee, expressed their disquiet about Justice Madlanga’s Involvement in the programme. Mr Mncube and Ms Van Niekerk responded by saying that the programme was a draft for approval by JP Leeuw and that Justice Madlanga’s name was suggested to JP Leeuw on the basis that he was the most senior Judge at the Constitutional Court after ACJ Zondo at the time,” read the complaint.
The letter also emphasised that since the previous programmes had always involved a Deputy Chief Justice and in the absence of an Acting DCJ, it was deemed prudent to include Justice Madlanga to perform the functions that would have been performed by an Acting DCJ.
“She then blamed us for not managing the “judiciary politics”, well knowing that there were tensions within the judiciary because of the pending Chief Justice’s interviews.
“Later on, that day she informed Mr Mncube and Ms Van Niekerk in a meeting attended by Adv Potgieter, Mr Jacobs and Mr Mokoe that she had spoken to both ACJ Zondo and JP Leeuw and both had said Mr Mncube and Ms Van Niekerk had contacted all candidates to be interviewed for the Chief Justice position and requested some information from them.
“She further said the justification for Justice Madlanga’s Involvement was that he was a candidate for the Chief Justice position, not the one given by Mr Mncube and Ms Van Niekerk. After this meeting, Adv Marelize (Potgieter) said that Ms Sejosengwe had alleged that Mr Mncube and Ms Van Niekerk had lied to her, and read the complaint.”
The letter of complaint mentioned that advocate Potgieter informed Mncube and Van Niekerk that they had picked up a lot of errors in the report they had shared with Zondo, who was vying for the Chief Justice position.
“They told us that the errors were deliberately meant to publicly embarrass the Acting Chief Justice Zondo with the view to jeopardise his chances of becoming the Chief Justice.
“That Mr Mncube and Ms Van Niekerk wanted/preferred Justice Madlanga to be the Chief Justice. And this was so because Ms Van Niekerk had clerked for Justice Madlanga at the Constitutional Court.
“That the plot didn’t only involve preventing Zondo from becoming the Chief Justice but also involved getting “rid” of Ms Sejosengwe and Adv Potgieter. The plot was to have both Ms Sejosengwe and Adv Potgieter charged and dismissed for misconduct. Once Justice Madlanga was appointed Chief Justice, he would ensure that Mr Mncube and Ms Van Niekerk would be appointed SG and DDG respectively.
“Zondo did not want to have any direct communication with Mr Mncube and Ms Van Niekerk. All communication was supposed to go through Adv Potgieter. Even though Mr Mncube and Ms Van Niekerk were reporting directly to Ms Sejosengwe in respect of their spokesperson and JSC Secretariat duties, they were not allowed to communicate directly with Ms Sejosengwe,” read the complaint.
Spokeswoman for the OCJ, Lusanda Ntuli, said last week that It was the first time that the OCJ became aware of the complaint.
“Neither the OCJ nor the staff implicated in were ever requested by an appropriate authority to respond to the allegations contained therein.
“It is important that authorities bestowed with the legal power to investigate allegations of the nature contained in Annexure A (Allegations against the OCJ Head) be allowed to deal appropriately therewith; It is therefore the view of the OCJ that it will be premature for untested allegations, impacting on the rights of those affected, to be ventilated publicly.
Contacted for comment, the Public Service Commission said it had referred the matter to the Justice Ministry in 2022.
The Justice Department did not respond to the question from the publication.
thabo.makwakwa@inl.co.za