Salaries of Constitutional Court judges, judges and magistrates: draft notices and schedules

Meeting report

Judges and magistrates remuneration. Briefing
Advocate Johan de Lange, Principal State Law Advisor, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, briefed the Committee explained that the two Acts involved – the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act, and the Magistrates Act – required that the President determine the salaries after taking into consideration the recommendations of the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Officer Bearers. The notice must be submitted to both Houses of Parliament for approval. Then Parliament may either reject the notice or reject the notice in part. The Commission published its recommendations on 12 November in the Gazette. The President was approached prior to this, and the letters to the Houses of Parliament were dated 11 November 2010. Thus this has occurred within a small time-frame. He then asked the Committee to make a decision on the issue.

Mr A Watson (DA, Mpumalanga) proposed that the Committee adopt the proposal.

Mr A Matila (ANC) seconded the proposal.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee had agreed to adopt the proposal.

Discussion
Mr D Bloem (COPE, Free State) asked what the purpose was of engaging the Committee on this issue. He felt this was a waste of time for the Committee as it was merely a formality as there would be no engagement or debate on the process where the Committee could influence the decision.

Mr Matila stated that this should be the last time where this occurred. He proposed no engagement on the issue and that the Committee just adopt the proposal.

Mr M Makhubela (COPE, Limpopo) asked when the Committee would “put its foot down”. He agreed that the Committee should adopt the proposal, but stated that next time it must not occur.

Mr M Mokgobi (ANC, Limpopo) agreed as he felt [that its being a mere formality] undermined the integrity of the Committee.

Mr J Gunda (ID, Northern Cape) agreed with Mr Mokgobi. He asked when the Committee would be taken seriously. He stated that the NCOP was the Upper House.

Mr Watson stated that he understood the frustration of the members but asked what power the members would have to change it. The decision on remuneration was first taken by a commission chaired by a judge before being endorsed by the President. The Committee was merely there to agree.

Mr T Beyleveldt (DA Whip in the NCOP) agreed with Mr Watson as this issue has been through a process and the Committee can only endorse the results.

Mr Matila stated that the point was that the judges should not be able to determine their own salaries. He felt that this needed outside evaluation and the process must be changed. He stated that this Committee should not be at the end of the process. He stated that this must be the last time that this occurred, because the next time he would not vote.

Mr Watson endorsed the sentiments of frustration but he reminded the Committee that according to the laws on remuneration of judges and magistrates were determined by a Commission which made recommendations to the President. The President would then make a decision on these recommendations. This Commission recommended a 7% increase for the President, Cabinet Ministers down to the MPs as well as the judges and magistrates. The President decided to reduce this to a 5% increase. The only task of the Committee was to agree or disagree with this.

Mr Bloem stated that the President had already approved this increase.

Mr Watson interrupted to state that the President did not approve the recommendation as he changed it to 5%.

Mr Bloem replied that the amount of the increase did not matter; it was rather that a decision had been made on that amount with the President approving it. Mr Bloem stated that no matter the response of the Committee, the increase would stand. He asked what the purpose of the briefing was. It did not appear to have a purpose and was unnecessary.

Mr Gunda commented that there was not a problem with the increase, there was a problem with the Act and the procedure. How should the Act be amended? How could a judge decide how much he should earn?

Mr Mokgabi stated that one of the requirements of the Act was the approval of the National Assembly but this Committee was not from the National Assembly.

The Chairperson asked the Members not to focus on those details, for the proposal only required a simple agreement or disagreement.

Mr Mokgobi suggested that it be noted that the Committee did not have the facts.

Mr Matila stated that the Committee should approve the proposal but challenge the process. The problem was with the Act. This required a legal opinion.

Mr Bloem commented that there was a committee in Parliament dealing with this issue, so it was not only the judges dealing with it. There were recommendations sent by a multiparty committee in the National Assembly. Members should object that the Act asked only for the approval of the National Assembly and not both Houses of Parliament. It was also then not necessary for the Committee to have a briefing on this issue as there was another committee dealing with it.

Suspended magistrates M N Jassiem and A Maharaj: adoption of reports
The Chairperson asked the Committee to adopt the reports on the suspended magistrates, MN Jassiem and A Maharaj.

Mr Matila moved to adopt the reports.

The motion was seconded.

Provisionally suspended magistrates I W O M Morake, F R Rambau, and L Skrenya: adoption of reports
The Chairperson asked the Committee to adopt the reports on the provisionally suspended magistrates, IWOM Morake, FR Rambau, L Skrenya.

Mr Beyleveldt commented that this motion was for the extension of the suspension.

These reports were also adopted.

Mr Matila commented that too many magistrates have been suspended this year. He suggested that the Committee do oversight to see where the problem was. He was worried about the issue.

The Chairperson agreed that it should be added to the programme.

Mr Bloem felt that there was no oversight on the magistrates and no watchdog so the Committee needed to visit them.

Mr Makhubela commented that the debate about the suspension of magistrates which was held in the last meeting was printed verbatim in the newspaper the following day. He felt this embarrassed the Committee and asked who was leaking the information.

Mr Matila replied that the media had been in the room.

The meeting was adjourned.