Judicial Service Commission

Conflicting principles surface in Kenyan case on judicial service commission appointments

Kenya’s highest court has delivered a decision that strongly defends the independence of the judiciary and, by extension, the independence of the mechanism by which judges are chosen, the Judicial Service Commission. It’s a watershed decision in that it will significantly change the way in which members of the JSC are appointed: the court said the president of the country had no function, not even a ceremonial one, in appointing and gazetting JSC members and that the role that the president had assumed in the past was a ‘fundamental contravention’ of the constitution.

Read judgment

The litigation in this case was prompted by action of the country’s then president, Uhuru Kenyatta. During his terms of office, he developed a track record of conflict – sometimes escalating to seriously intense levels – over the relative powers of the executive and the judiciary.

Tough questions asked about JSC’s role in extending tenure of Zim’s retired CJ

The drama of Zimbabwe’s ‘judicial amendment’ is far from over. This week, two separate letters demanding information were sent to the judicial service commission, asking for details about the JSC’s role in considering or facilitating the extension of retired Chief Justice Luke Malaba’s tenure.

What, exactly, was the part played by the judicial service commission in facilitating another five years in office for Zimbabwe’s controversial former Chief Justice, Luke Malaba? And, since he was a kingpin in the JSC, did he declare a conflict of interest and excuse himself from any discussions on the matter?

These and other potentially embarrassing questions have been asked of the JSC by two firms of lawyers this week.

Judicial disciplinary body tells Chief Justice to retract, apologise for pro-Israel comments critical of government policy

South Africa’s Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng has been told to issue an apology and a retraction for a series of highly controversial comments he made in the middle of last year, criticising Pretoria’s policy on Israel. The decision plus the ‘remedial steps’ of apology and retraction were issued this week by the Judicial Conduct Committee of SA’s Judicial Service Commission. After a mid-2020 interview and subsequent comments defending the views he expressed, several official complaints were made to the JSC.

Read decision

The controversy began when South Africa’s Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng took part in a webinar with SA’s chief rabbi, Warren Goldstein. The event, in June 2020, was hosted by the Jerusalem Post and was headlined: Two Chiefs, One Mission – confronting apartheid of the heart’.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Judicial Service Commission
x123xx