2026: A decisive year for judicial accountability and institutional reform

As South Africa enters 2026, the judiciary stands at a critical juncture. 2025 laid important foundations for governance reform and institutional independence, while simultaneously exposing deep fault lines in judicial accountability. The challenge for 2026 is clear: progress must now translate into measurable change, delivered with urgency, transparency, and credibility.

The challenge for 2026 is clear: progress must now translate into measurable change, delivered with urgency, transparency, and credibility.

Judicial leadership in a year of delivery

As 2026 begins, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya enters her second full year in office, with Deputy Chief Justice Dunstan Mlambo now fully established in his role. The significance of this leadership moment cannot be overstated. By the end of 2025, the judiciary had suffered massive reputational blows, including the arrest of Judge Portia Phahlane on corruption charges in November. Chief Justice Maya announced a new anti-sexual harassment policy, while President Ramaphosa also announced reforms aimed at strengthening institutional independence. This means 2026 must be the year in which those commitments are translated into concrete, measurable change. It calls for leadership from both Maya and Mlambo, as well as the entire judicial leadership collective, to implement the reforms while also strengthening public trust. (Read more)

Chief Justice Maya’s articulated vision centres on institutional independence for the judiciary, transparency, and restoring confidence in the courts. In 2026, leadership will be judged on execution: whether court capacity improves, whether governance reforms proceed on schedule, and whether misconduct complaints are resolved with urgency rather than inertia.

In 2026, leadership will be judged on execution: whether court capacity improves, whether governance reforms proceed on schedule, and whether misconduct complaints are resolved with urgency rather than inertia.

Deputy Chief Justice Mlambo brings proven administrative experience from the country’s busiest courts. That experience now carries a national responsibility.

The challenge for both leaders is no longer diagnosing systemic problems but driving operational discipline across the judiciary and ensuring that long-standing inefficiencies are decisively addressed.

At the same time, the expanding scope of judicial leadership for the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice presents a structural risk. Governance reform, disciplinary oversight, international representation, and institutional administration increasingly compete with core judicial responsibilities at the Constitutional Court. If reform is to be sustainable, both Maya and Mlambo’s leadership must be matched by adequate delegation, administrative support, and institutional capacity.

For Judges Matter, 2026 is not a year for reassurances. It is a year for outcomes. Judicial leadership will be tested not by speeches or policy intent, but by whether the judiciary emerges demonstrably more independent, more accountable, and more effective in delivering justice.

Judicial leadership will be tested not by speeches or policy intent, but by whether the judiciary emerges demonstrably more independent, more accountable, and more effective in delivering justice.

Judicial governance reform for judicial excellence

One of the most consequential developments carrying into 2026 is President Ramaphosa’s renewed commitment to establishing the judiciary as a fully independent, co-equal arm of the state. Judges Matter has welcomed this commitment, but has called for transparency on what concrete steps will be taken towards institutional, administrative, and financial independence for the judiciary. This will also include unifying judges and magistrates under a single judiciary. Judicial independence is not a nice-to-have. It is a constitutional necessity and a cornerstone of public trust.

Judicial independence is not a nice-to-have. It is a constitutional necessity and a cornerstone of public trust.

These reforms are not symbolic. Central to the judiciary’s frustrations over the years is that it lacks control over key aspects of court operations, such as IT, infrastructure, security, and libraries. All of these currently reside under the Executive, in the form of the Minister of Justice and the Departments of Justice and Public Works. Greater institutional independence would also insulate courts from political interference. Phase one of the project, involving the transfer of shared services from the Department of Justice to the Office of the Chief Justice, is scheduled for April 2026. The success or failure of this transition will shape the judiciary’s effectiveness and credibility for decades to come.

A report compiled by retired Judge Bernard Ngoepe sets out the blueprint for these governance reforms. According to the Ngoepe Report, in addition to the transfer of shared services, the first phase would involve transforming the existing Heads of Court forum into a Judicial Council, similar to those in countries such as the United States and Kenya. This body would provide oversight over the governance of the judiciary and implement the remainder of the blueprint, including the formal fusion of magistrates and judges under a single judiciary, with improved working conditions for all and a renewed commitment to judicial excellence.

An urgent question Judges Matter has raised is what accountability under this new framework will look like. All state-funded institutions account to Parliament for the public funds entrusted to them. Will accountability also move from the Minister to the new Judicial Council, chaired by the Chief Justice?

While much of the focus falls on the superior courts, the success of a single, institutionally independent judiciary in 2026 will also depend on extending governance reform, accountability mechanisms, and adequate resourcing to the magistracy, where the vast majority of South Africans encounter the justice system.

Performance pressures and capacity constraints

The Judiciary Annual Reports for 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 show modest improvements in court performance, alongside persistent structural constraints. Chronic underfunding, staff shortages, and infrastructure gaps continue to delay hearings and judgments. While proposals such as allowing smaller Constitutional Court panels may alleviate pressure at the apex court, they do not address the systemic resource deficits across the judiciary.

Read the Judiciary Annual Report for 2023 – 2024

Read the Judiciary Annual Report for 2024 – 2025

Without sustained investment and administrative reform, performance gains in 2026 will remain fragile.

Accountability, sexual harassment, and the test of institutional reform

Alongside governance reform and leadership consolidation, 2026 will be a defining year for how the judiciary confronts misconduct, sexual harassment, and internal accountability. The introduction of the Sexual Harassment Policy of the South African Judiciary in August 2025 marked an important normative shift. (Read more)

After years of advocacy by civil society, including Judges Matter, the policy formally affirmed that sexual harassment and abuse of power have no place in the judicial workplace.

The policy is clear in its intent: to entrench a culture of dignity, equality, and respect, and to provide meaningful protection for complainants through multiple reporting pathways. Central to this framework is the establishment of the Gender Desk at the Office of the Chief Justice (GDOCJ), envisaged as a coordinating hub to receive reports, provide emotional and legal support, and interface with disciplinary bodies such as the Judicial Service Commission and the Magistrates Commission.

However, as 2026 begins, the critical question is no longer whether the policy exists, but whether it is being implemented. The credibility of the Sexual Harassment Policy will depend on the operationalisation of the Gender Desk, the rollout of mandatory training and sensitisation, and the speed and seriousness with which complaints are handled. In hierarchical institutions like courts, where power imbalances are entrenched, delayed or opaque processes risk reproducing the very harms the policy seeks to prevent.

Misconduct tribunals, systemic delay, and accountability

These concerns are not abstract. The Mbenenge Tribunal, which concluded hearings in 2025, starkly illustrated the human and institutional cost of drawn-out judicial conduct processes. Allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of authority took years to reach a tribunal stage, reinforcing long-standing criticisms that misconduct mechanisms are overly complex, slow, and insufficiently resourced.

The Parker Tribunal tells a similar story. Complaints dating back to early 2020 only reached final determination in January 2026, when the Judicial Service Commission found Judge Mushtak Parker guilty of gross misconduct on two counts and resolved to refer the matter to Parliament for impeachment and removal proceedings.

Similarly, the judicial tribunal against Gauteng Judge Tshifhiwa Maumela, now in its fourth year since the complaint was laid, has stalled indefinitely. These timelines underscore a systemic failure: accountability processes remain incapable of responding with the urgency such matters demand.

Notably, reforms mandated by the 2023 Judges’ Conference to overhaul the judicial misconduct system are yet to be implemented. Maya has given assurances that work is underway to review the Code of Judicial Conduct, but nothing has been made public a year after the review began. This reinforces concerns about institutional follow-through and transparency.

While there are tentative signs of progress, including legislative amendments before Parliament to expand the Judicial Conduct Committee and increase its capacity, these measures must translate into materially faster outcomes for judicial misconduct complaints. Accountability delayed is accountability denied, both for complainants and for judges. The judiciary’s credibility is on the line.

Read: Judges Matter submission on the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill currently before Parliament

Bribery allegations and the erosion of public trust

Entering 2026, the judiciary is also grappling with a surge of bribery and corruption allegations against judges. These include a R5 000 bribery claim against a Johannesburg judge currently under investigation by the Judicial Conduct Committee, as well as criminal proceedings against Pretoria High Court Judge Portia Phahlane.

These complaints also arise at a time when the judiciary’s image is under intense public scrutiny at the Madlanga Commission, where KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi and others have made explosive, although still unsubstantiated, allegations against judicial officers.

As Judges Matter has emphasised, such allegations are deeply damaging to the integrity and image of the judiciary. They demand a swift, fair, and transparent investigation. Where wrongdoing is established, decisive consequences must follow. Where allegations are unfounded, they must be resolved quickly to restore trust and protect judicial independence.

Watch more:

“As Judges Matter, we are very concerned when we learn of these allegations. They are deeply concerning because they put a dent in the integrity and image of the judiciary and people’s respect for it. We therefore expect that the relevant authorities, in this case the Judicial Service Commission and the Magistrates Commission, take these allegations seriously and institute investigations swiftly so that they are dealt with fully and appropriately.”
– Mbekezeli Benjamin

Justice delayed in accountability processes is justice denied to the public.

Appointments, vacancies, and rebuilding confidence

Judicial leadership in 2026 will also be tested by its ability to stabilise and strengthen the judicial appointments process. Amid a chronic shortage of judges across the country, the JSC is struggling to fill some vacancies, particularly at the Labour Court and the Land Court. This continues to strain court capacity and undermine efficiency.

President Ramaphosa’s imminent appointment of two justices to the Constitutional Court will close a troubling chapter for the apex court, which has gone nearly a decade without a full complement of permanent judges. This must never happen again. Appointments to the court must be proactive. The next vacancy will arise in February 2027, when Justice Mhlantla retires. There is no need to wait until then.

While interview practices at the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) have improved in recent years, these gains remain vulnerable without formal institutional safeguards. A clear, binding code of conduct for JSC commissioners is urgently needed to ensure consistency, professionalism, and fairness in interviews, and to prevent a return to the grandstanding and arbitrary questioning that previously undermined the credibility of the appointments process.

Beyond procedural reform, the JSC faces a credibility challenge that continues to deter strong candidates from applying. Without restoring confidence in the appointments process and adopting a strategic, transparent approach to recruitment, vacancies will persist regardless of formal improvements. Filling posts with capable, independent candidates is not ancillary to reform or transformation; it is central to it.

Read: The JSC Must Play Its Strategic ‘Human Resources’ Function

What must happen in 2026

Looking ahead, 2026 must deliver on several fronts:

• tangible progress towards institutional independence for the judiciary, including the successful transfer of key court administration functions to the Office of the Chief Justice

• the JSC continuing to build public confidence in the judicial appointments process, including by adopting a binding code of conduct for commissioners

• the finalisation of long-outstanding tribunal investigations currently underway

• faster, more transparent handling of judicial misconduct complaints, including the passage of the Judicial Matters Amendment Bill in Parliament

• meaningful implementation of the sexual harassment policy, including the operationalisation of the Gender Desk

Public confidence in the judiciary is not restored through rhetoric or symbolism. It is rebuilt through consistent performance, ethical leadership, and timely accountability.

The work ahead is demanding. But the stakes could not be higher. In 2026, the judiciary must show not only that it is independent, but that it is worthy of the trust placed in it.