Insights from the September Magistrates Commission’s leadership interviews

Behind closed doors: insights from the September Magistrates Commission’s leadership interviews

From 14 to 16 September 2026, Judges Matter attended three days of Magistrates Commission interviews for leadership vacancies in the magistracy at district and regional level. Over the three days, the Commission interviewed 33 candidates for the positions of Regional Court President in Cape Town and Mbombela, and Chief Magistrate in Durban, Gqeberha, Mbombela, Palm Ridge and Wynberg. [Find out more about the interviews here.]

Because the interviews were for leadership positions, the full Magistrates Commission, chaired by Judge President Ledwaba, conducted them, with Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Andries Nel also in attendance. By contrast, the Commission’s Appointments Committee, headed by Regional Court President Mbalo, handles appointments to ordinary magistrate posts at district and regional court level.

Familiar foundations: how the process compares to the JSC

The appointment processes of the Magistrates Commission and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) share many similarities. As with the JSC, the process begins with a call for applications for specific magistracy vacancies, submitted to the Magistrates Commission Secretariat. The Commission’s Appointments Committee then shortlists candidates and presents the shortlist to the full Commission for approval. Shortlisted candidates are invited to interview, and the Commission publishes the shortlist for public comment. Objections are also handled in much the same way as at the JSC. A committee of commissioners considers the comments and objections received against candidates, and only those that appear to have substance and warrant further discussion are put to the candidate during the interview. This gives the candidate a fair opportunity to respond and allows the Commission to understand the nature of the complaint and how it bears on the candidate’s suitability for the position.

Beyond these shared steps, however, several key differences remain. The first concerns the Commission’s committee structure and how openly it is disclosed. Section 6 of the Magistrates Act 90 of 1993 provides for an executive committee and any other committees the Commission deems necessary to properly perform its functions. The Magistrates Commission names these committees and their members on its website. By contrast, although the JSC’s recently circulated draft procedure document refers to a shortlisting committee in paragraph 12, the JSC does not disclose its committees or their members to the same extent. The second difference is the time given for public comment on candidates. The JSC allowed six weeks for comments, while the Magistrates Commission allowed only 11 days, which leaves the public little opportunity to engage properly and prepare meaningful submissions. Finally, the two bodies take different approaches to assessing candidates’ fitness for office in their application forms. The JSC asks broad questions, such as whether any circumstances might embarrass the judiciary, or whether the candidate has been found guilty of misconduct or convicted of an offence. The Magistrates Commission’s application form is far more detailed. It asks each of these questions separately and also enquires into the candidate’s financial standing, including any history of sequestration or insolvency.

The two processes also diverge at the point of appointment. The President appoints judges under section 174 of the Constitution and, for most superior court positions, must act on the advice of the JSC. Magistrates, by contrast, are appointed by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development “after consultation with” the Commission, in terms of section 10 of the Magistrates Act, a formulation that leaves the Minister greater discretion. In both cases, the formal appointment is ultimately made by a member of the executive, although the extent of their discretion differs. The key difference is visibility. The JSC announces its recommended candidates once interviews for a vacancy conclude, whereas the Magistrates Commission only makes successful candidates public once the Minister has appointed them.

Shortlisting of candidates

As with the JSC, the Magistrates Commission’s shortlisting process is rooted in section 174(1) and (2) of the Constitution, which require that a candidate be appropriately qualified and that the need for the judiciary to reflect broadly the racial and gender composition of South Africa be considered. Where the JSC assesses demographic representation across the courts generally, the Magistrates Commission assesses it for each specific office. The Commission also considers whether a candidate has the minimum required level of relevant experience, the needs of the particular office, and the candidate’s managerial skills. At the interview stage, further factors come into play, including integrity, work ethic, legal knowledge, written and oral communication skills, sensitivity to social context, and judicial temperament.

Inside the interview room: tone and substance

The interviews were conducted calmly and constructively. Questions were respectful, focused and consistent across candidates, and commissioners appeared more concerned with assessing suitability for office than with testing candidates through adversarial exchanges. Difficult issues were raised where necessary, but the political contestation and occasionally combative atmosphere that can characterise some JSC interviews were absent. The result was a more structured assessment of candidates’ leadership and professional competencies.

The questions also set these interviews apart. Candidates were broadly diverse in race and gender, and the questions moved away from the general, transformation-focused inquiries that often feature prominently in JSC interviews. Instead, interviewers questioned candidates extensively on leadership, case management, acting experience, succession planning, and strategies for attracting and mentoring aspiring magistrates. This reflects the operational nature of these roles, which require candidates not only to adjudicate but also to manage large court divisions and improve judicial performance.

Delays, backlogs and leadership: what the interviews revealed

As at the JSC, the candidates spanned a wide range. Some were clearly strong and well suited to leadership, while the suitability of others was far less apparent, raising questions about how they had made it onto the shortlist.

Many of the concerns raised related less to judicial philosophy, which often features prominently in JSC interviews, and more to administrative performance. Outstanding part-heard matters, delays in delivering judgments, case backlogs, leadership failures and the management of court divisions featured repeatedly. This highlights the distinct challenges facing the magistracy, where effective administration is as important as legal competence in ensuring access to justice.

Outstanding part-heard matters were of particular concern. In several instances, they involved criminal proceedings in which accused persons remained incarcerated while their cases remained unresolved for prolonged periods. Chronic under-capacitation undoubtedly contributes to these delays, but it does not answer questions about accountability and court management, or about the lived reality of access to justice. Delays of this kind undermine constitutional rights and erode public confidence in the justice system.

A question of fairness: the length of the sitting

The process itself, however, raised concerns. While Judge President Ledwaba led the interviews fairly and consistently, the schedule was almost unrealistically long. On the first day, proceedings ran until 11 pm, and candidates were called three to four hours after their allotted times. Commissioners were visibly tired, and understandably so: members of the Appointments Committee had already spent several consecutive weeks interviewing candidates for district and regional posts before the leadership interviews began.

The pressure on the schedule is understandable. Candidates are serving magistrates who must return to their courts, and every additional day of interviews takes them away from their caseloads, which limits how far a sitting can reasonably be extended. Even so, the length of the days seemed to take its toll, and interviews held later in the evening appeared noticeably less thorough than those held earlier. This raises a question of fairness. A candidate interviewed at the end of a long day, after hours of waiting and before a tired panel, may not have the same opportunity to present themselves as one interviewed first thing in the morning. Where appointments turn on fine distinctions between candidates, even small differences in how interviews are conducted can matter.

This is not a concern unique to the Magistrates Commission. JSC sittings are similarly demanding, often involving long days and extensive candidate lists, and the same risks apply there. Both bodies would benefit from considering how they structure their schedules, whether by spreading interviews over more days, limiting the number of candidates per day, or setting a reasonable end time. The aim is simply to assess every candidate under comparable conditions.

Opening the doors: the case for greater transparency

Transparency is another area where the Commission’s process warrants attention. In some respects, the Magistrates Commission compares favourably with the JSC. It publishes the names of its committees and their members on its website, while the JSC has not disclosed its committee structures to the same extent. In other respects, however, the Commission’s process remains considerably less open. The 11-day window for public comment on shortlisted candidates, compared to the six weeks allowed by the JSC, leaves little time for civil society, the legal profession and members of the public to research candidates and prepare meaningful submissions. A short comment period does more than inconvenience those who wish to participate. It narrows the range of information available to the Commission and weakens the public’s ability to take part in the process at all.

The interviews themselves are also largely inaccessible. Unlike JSC interviews, which are broadcast publicly and allow citizens to scrutinise both candidates and commissioners, Magistrates Commission interviews are not broadcast or livestreamed. There are understandable reasons for this in the case of interviews for district and regional posts, where the Commission questions are more standardised and publishing them could disadvantage those interviewed earlier. However, leadership interviews are different: the questions varied considerably, turning on each candidate’s record, the needs of the specific office, and the challenges facing the courts concerned. This makes leadership interviews a natural place to begin opening up the Commission’s processes. Given the central role magistrates’ courts play in the justice system, there is a compelling case for broadcasting or livestreaming these interviews.

These interviews matter to our democracy. Magistrates’ courts are where ordinary South Africans first encounter justice, and they are the testing ground for public confidence in the entire judicial system. When citizens walk into these courts, they place their faith in a system that promises fairness, competence and integrity. That system depends on competent, ethical leadership at every level, and the leaders who emerge from this process will shape millions of people’s daily experience of justice. As citizens, we should have the same access to interviews with the future leaders of the magistracy as we do to JSC interviews.

Different courts, shared lessons

Overall, the Magistrates Commission interviews showed a process that shares much with JSC leadership interviews while differing in emphasis. In both, candidates are questioned on their vision for the court, the challenges it faces and how they intend to address them, and on any matters bearing on whether they are fit and proper for office. What distinguished the Magistrates Commission interviews was the level of operational detail. Commissioners focused closely on each candidate’s administrative record, pressing on part-heard matters, delays in judgments, case backlogs and the management of court divisions. Engagement from the panel was also notably broad. Most commissioners, across the various sectors represented on the Commission, questioned candidates in almost every interview, a level of consistent participation not always seen in JSC interviews. This reflects the particular demands placed on leaders of the lower courts, where effective administration directly shapes access to justice. It also underscores the need for greater public visibility into a process with such significant implications for the administration of justice.

Genevieve Maujean and Dimakatso Nchodu are Research Officers at Judges Matter, a transparency project of the Democratic Governance and Rights Unit at the University of Cape Town that monitors the South African judiciary.