Gender-based affirmative action in the appointment of High Court judges

The legitimacy of the judiciary is dependent on the racial and gender diversity of the courts. As a result of the oppressive policies imposed by the apartheid government, the High Court judiciary in 1994 was composed almost exclusively of white men. Judges were appointed at the behest of the executive arm of government and political considerations undoubtedly played a role in the selection process. As a result, the integrity of the judiciary was severely compromised in that the composition was entirely unrepresentative of the population it served, and they were appointed in order to further the strict racial policies of the apartheid government. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa came into being through multi-party negotiations and is to form the basis of a complete transformation of the South African society. In a clear move away from the judicial appointments procedure of the past, the Constitution specifies that judges are to be selected by the Judicial Services Commission which is an independent body composed of members from all three branches of the government. In its selection, the JSC is guided by section 174(2) of the Constitution which requires that the racial and gender demographics of the judiciary must be considered when judges are appointed so as to make the bench broadly reflective of the South Africa population. Systemic discrimination of the past denied women the opportunity to gain the necessary knowledge and experience to be eligible for appointment to the bench. Special measures are therefore needed to advance women’s career path to the judiciary. In 2010, the Judicial Services Commission adopted selection criteria to be considered when shortlisting and selecting candidates to be recommended to the President for judicial appointment. Included in these criteria is the consideration of symbolism and potential. Special measures to advance persons who were previously disadvantaged by discriminatory practices are permissible in terms of section 9(2) of the Constitution. It recognises that true substantive equality will not be achieved without special measures aimed at remedying to disadvantage still felt by many people in South Africa, including women. The imposition of such measures does, however, have limitations. In the judiciary, specifically, demographic considerations can not be the primary consideration when judges are appointed. This could lead to a judiciary that is incapable to dispense justice to the population it serves because it does not have the required skill, knowledge and experience. On the other hand, if judges are appointed solely on technical merit, the judiciary is likely to remain male-dominated. The JSC therefore has to carefully balance the need for demographic transformation of the judiciary with the need to appoint technically competent judges. In Minister of Finance v van Heerden, the Constitutional Court laid down three requirements which remedial measures must meet in order to pass constitutional muster. Firstly, the beneficiaries targeted by the remedial measure must be persons who have been discriminated against in the past. Secondly, it must be designed to protect or advance previously disadvantaged persons. Lastly, the remedial measures must promote the achievement of equality in the long term. Once a measures meets all three of these requirements, it is not considered to be unfair discrimination against previously advantaged persons who do not stand to benefit from the measure in question. To safeguard the independence of the judiciary, judges are not considered to be employees of the state. This means that the provisions contained in labour legislation which requires the adoption of a formal employment equity plan when imposing affirmative action measures is not directly applicable to the appointment of judges. The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act envisages the adoption of equality plans in all spheres not governed by labour legislation. These provisions are, however, not yet in force. As a result, there is no legislation that requires the Judicial Services Commission to adopt a formal affirmative action policy, and appointments made to address the gender imbalances on the judiciary are made on an ad hoc basis which runs counter to the test formulated in van Heerden. A related problem is that the Judicial Services Commission has not given sufficient content on the criteria needed for judicial appointment. For instance, even though the Judicial Services Commission does consider the technical competence, it has not published any guidance as to what is considered to be the minimum threshold of formal qualifications or experience needed to be appointed to judicial office. This has led many people to speculate that certain judges are appointed for ulterior purposes or, alternatively, that there exists some racial or gender bias within the Judicial Services Commission. This holds unfortunate consequences for the perceived legitimacy of the judiciary and strengthens the call for more structure and clarity in the appointment of judges