- Judges Matter and the DGRC support amendments that would expand the Judicial Conduct Committee from six members to 10.
- The organisations say capacity constraints have contributed to delays in resolving judicial misconduct complaints.
- Parliament is being urged to pursue broader legislative reform and commit additional resources to strengthen judicial accountability.
Complaints against judges can take months or even years to be resolved in South Africa’s judicial disciplinary system. Civil society groups warn that such delays threaten the effectiveness of judicial accountability and undermine public confidence in the process.
The Democratic Governance and Rights Unit (DGRU) and Judges Matter are calling on Parliament to strengthen the system by adopting proposed changes in the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill 2025. They are also pushing for wider reforms to improve how judicial misconduct complaints are handled.
The two organisations recently appeared before Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development. Judges Matter researcher Mbekezeli Benjamin presented oral submissions supporting the Bill.
Benjamin explained how the judicial conduct system works, outlined the reasons for the proposed amendments, and urged lawmakers to pass the legislation. He said these changes would help the Judicial Conduct Committee handle complaints more effectively and uphold ethical standards in the judiciary.
These proposed changes come after years of research, analysis, and advocacy by Judges Matter. Their focus has been on strengthening judicial accountability, protecting judicial independence, and promoting high ethical standards in South Africa’s courts.
Delays in handling complaints
The organisations say the Judicial Conduct Committee is central to the judicial misconduct system and plays a vital role in handling serious complaints against judges.
Complaints about misconduct, incompetence, or incapacity often require formal hearings, investigations, and detailed written rulings. These tasks fall to members of the Judicial Conduct Committee, most of whom are serving judges with heavy court workloads and responsibilities.
This situation puts significant pressure on the committee’s limited capacity and contributes to delays in finalising complaints.
The organisations note that in the 2023/24 financial year, the Judicial Service Commission received 125 complaints. Only 28 were finalised, and 97 remained unresolved by the end of the reporting period.
The submission states that most unresolved complaints from 2023/24 involved serious but non-impeachable misconduct and were delayed at crucial stages that require action from the Judicial Conduct Committee.
It adds that these delays are largely due to a lack of capacity in the Judicial Conduct Committee, especially the small number of judges available to process complaints efficiently.
Expansion of the Judicial Conduct Committee
The Judicial Matters Amendment Bill proposes increasing the Judicial Conduct Committee from six to 10 members. The Bill also allows for the appointment of up to three temporary members if permanent members are unavailable, if there are complaint backlogs, or when matters need urgent attention.
Judges Matter and the DGRU support this proposal, saying it addresses one of the system’s biggest weaknesses.
The submission says the amendments would significantly expand the Judicial Conduct Committee’s capacity by allowing more judges to be appointed at any one time.
The organisations believe these changes will help reduce delays and improve the committee’s ability to process complaints more effectively.
Benjamin told Parliament that the amendment would significantly boost the committee’s capacity to handle judicial misconduct complaints and strengthen the enforcement of ethical standards in the judiciary.
The submission also suggests prioritising retired judges for temporary appointments, as they have the necessary expertise and are more likely to be available to help with urgent matters and complaint backlogs.
Calls for broader reform
While welcoming the proposed amendments, the organisations argue that simply expanding the Judicial Conduct Committee will not solve the deeper challenges facing the judicial misconduct system.
They point to administrative and staffing constraints within the structures supporting the Judicial Conduct Committee and judicial conduct tribunals. These pressures, they say, continue to hinder the efficient processing of complaints.
The submission calls for more comprehensive legislative reforms, including a standalone law dealing specifically with judicial misconduct.
It says there should be a standalone bill to regulate judicial misconduct, streamline the process, clarify stakeholder roles, and provide proper institutional infrastructure for investigations.
In conclusion, the organisations support the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill but emphasise that Parliament should see it as just the first step towards a more efficient, better-resourced, and more effective system for handling complaints against judges.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
