Head of the Judicial Services Commission Pius Langa came out in support of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) yesterday, following the outcry over the court’s incorrect attribution of a comment to the trial judge in the Schabir Shaik judgment.

Langa also took political organisations to task for debating the appeal court judgment publicly. He said the correct procedure would have been to lay a complaint with the commission. The commission did not investigate a matter until it received a complaint, he said.

“It goes without saying that there is a heavier responsibility on people in authority and/or leadership to desist from indulging in a free-for-all of public recriminations and vilification of the judiciary,” said Langa.

“Conduct of that sort only undermines the constitution and can have the effect of weakening both the judiciary and our democracy.”

He said the judges’ oath of office required them to do justice to all without fear or favour.

“Judges do not take part in everyday debates about the political situation in SA, nor do they enter public arenas to defend themselves against attacks directed at themselves.”

Langa’s comment comes after Justice Minister Brigitte Mabandla said any decision relating to the appeal court’s admission that it had erred in ascribing the words “a generally corrupt relationship” to trial judge Hilary Squires, was the “preserve of the commission”.

The Congress of South African Trade Unions and its ally, the South African Communist Party, called for the heads of the appeal court judges to roll for their judgment, which they felt incorrectly implicated Zuma by association.

Langa acknowledged that mistakes sometimes occurred. This was because judges were under pressure to deliver judgments on complex matters quickly.

“As chief justice, I can confirm that as a general rule South African judges do have the requisite integrity, competence and diligence,” he said. “While they take great care to produce work of the highest quality, mistakes will sometimes occur.”

The Supreme Court of Appeal admitted on Monday it had incorrectly attributed a statement made by the prosecution to Squires, but pointed out that the quote was in a secondary judgment that dealt with confiscation orders and not in the main appeal involving the corruption charges.

The appeal court said it had made its own independent findings, based on an exhaustive review of the evidence and the record of the trial court.

“The high court’s view of the symbiosis between Zuma and Shaik was confirmed by the SCA in various parts of its judgment, which ultimately conveyed that, on the evidence in this case, an overall corrupt relationship existed.”

The National Prosecuting Authority said in a statement this week that “Squires’ comments have no legal implications for any criminal matters whatsoever”.

With acknowledgement to Chantelle Benjamin and Business Day.