Publications
Partners
I request that the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) explores with the learned Judge Mabel Jansen the context in which she felt it permissible to make such prima facie racist and sexist remarks about black people in South Africa, and racially profiling all black women as being “brainwashed” into believing that fathers have a right to break their children’s virginity, while black men are reprobate murderers with sexual appetites that know no age boundaries.
If the JSC should find the learned judge’s “context” wanting for justifying her offensive remarks, it is my respectful submission that a commencement of a process for the judge’s removal from office in terms of the Constitution is unavoidable.
In light of the grossness and seriousness of these utterances, it is also my respectful submission that it would be untenable for the judge to continue sitting on the Bench and dispensing a version of justice that is evidently coloured by these remarks while a process for her removal is under way.
It is my respectful submission that these utterances by the judge:
. Are racially offensive and prejudicial, and constitute gross misconduct, as envisaged in the Constitution, read together with the Judicial Service Commission Act;
. Constitute wilful conduct that is incompatible with, or unbecoming of, the holding of judicial office and is prejudicial to the independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility, efficiency or effectiveness of the courts;
. Constitute wilful or, at best for the judge, grossly negligent breach by her of the code of conduct of the JSC; and
. Generally constitute a breach by the judge of the oath or solemn affirmation of judicial officers to “uphold and protect the Constitution and the human rights entrenched in it” and show her to be incapable of administering justice “to all persons alike, without fear, favour or prejudice, in accordance with the Constitution and the law”.
I say so for the following reasons, which, in my respectful submission, are obvious:
. The judge’s assertion – despite being cautioned not to make such general broad-brush remarks – that all black males are prone, as a matter of right, to rape their own children as young as five years old (who, she says, are regarded by black people as being old enough to be plied sexually) is so racially prejudicial and promotes such racial hatred and fear of black men that I cannot imagine any context justifying its being made by a judge of the high court.
. Equally, the assertion by the judge that all black people (on the basis of rape cases, over which she has had occasion to preside) consider five-year-old girls as being old enough to have sex, can have no rational and factual basis.
. With views such as these, no black man accused of rape can have the comfort that the judge would administer justice to him without prejudice, as her oath of office or solemn affirmation requires of her. In fact, these utterances of strongly held views by the judge render her incapable of complying with the Code of Judicial Conduct, namely to “remain manifestly impartial” in rape cases involving black men. The judge has, by these racially prejudicial utterances, shown herself to be manifestly prejudiced against black people, in general, and black men facing rape or sexual assault charges, in particular.
. By these utterances, she has unjustifiably violated the human dignity of all black South Africans, thereby not only breaching the code but also breaching the oath or solemn affirmation of judicial officers.
. In fact, while the code requires at all times “personally to avoid and dissociate him or herself from comments or conduct by persons subject to his or her control that are racist, sexist or otherwise manifest discrimination” in violation of the equality guaranteed by the Constitution, the judge appears – on the face of it – to have been the one making utterances that fit this description.
. In breach of the code, the judge has, by her hate speech against black people in general, and black men, in particular, “expressed views in a manner which may undermine the standing and integrity of the judiciary”.
. In breach of the code, by sharing information that she says was gleaned from her files, the judge has not only “disclosed or used non-public information acquired in a judicial capacity ... a purpose unrelated to ... her judicial duties”, she also invited a member of the public to peruse that information.
. By these utterances, the judge has – in breach of the code – “become involved in a political controversy or activity” and “taken part in ... activities that practise discrimination inconsistent with the Constitution”.
. The judge accuses unnamed black colleagues of making advances on her. But there is no indication that she has reported this alleged conduct to the judge president, as the code requires. Thus, all her black colleagues now remain suspects by innuendo. This is, with respect, untenable and conduct inconsistent with one holding judicial office. I invite the JSC to request an explanation of this conduct from the judge.
For all these reasons, Advocates for Transformation and I request the JSC to investigate this complaint.
This is an edited extract of the formal complaint lodged with the JSC by Advocate Ngalwana SC, chairperson of Advocates for Transformation in Johannesburg
TALK TO US
What form of censure do you think that Judge Mabel Jansen should be subjected to?
SMS us on 35697 using the keyword JUDGE and tell us what you think. Please include your name and province. SMSes cost R1.50
