Judicial reform is urgent for South Africa’s future

As the institution tasked with upholding the Constitution of South Africa and protecting human rights and the rule of law, the judiciary should stand as a pillar of stability.

Instead, it is buckling under the weight of dilapidated court infrastructure, chronic underfunding, and a lack of independence over key parts of administration such as security and IT. These conditions are precipitating a crisis in the judiciary.

Deadly consequences of the court infrastructure crisis

This crisis is not theoretical, it has deadly consequences. In April, taxi boss Dingalomoya Cintso, a witness in a murder trial, was gunned down in broad daylight inside the Wynberg Magistrate’s Court in Cape Town. The Magistrates’ Perception Survey explains that in a nationally representative survey of magistrates across the country, nearly a third report being threatened or harmed in the line of duty. In the Western Cape, the figure rises to a staggering 39%, almost four in ten magistrates.

These threats are not rare: 23% said they were harmed or threatened “once or twice,” while another 10% experienced this “a few times.” Courtrooms, entrances, and parking areas often lack a visible security presence, and where security exists, it is frequently rated as poor. In the Wynberg incident, private security guards were stationed at the entrance, but the metal detector was not working that day.

For ordinary South Africans, the consequences of infrastructure decay are devastating. Infrastructure-related delays have become systemic, with cases dragging on for years and backlogs choking the system. For a worker fighting unfair dismissal or a community defending its land rights, these delays are not mere inconveniences, they are a denial of basic human rights.

A key part of the crisis is a fundamental problem: the judiciary lacks institutional independence.

Judicial independence in practice

A key part of the crisis is a fundamental problem: the judiciary lacks institutional independence.

To be clear, this is not about judges’ independence in decision-making. Judges are still free to make their own decisions, free from political or other influence, or considerations outside the facts of each case and the law. The judiciary remains a trusted institution in a country where trust in public bodies is at an all-time low.

But the courts’ financial and administrative dependence on the Executive undermines their professed ability to protect rights fairly and without fear or favour. Essential functions; court infrastructure, IT services, security, even library resources, are still controlled by the Department of Justice and other executive agencies. This system leaves courts vulnerable when resources are insufficient, misallocated, or delayed.

The South African judiciary is aware of these concerns. At the Judges Conference in December 2023, themed “Towards a Single, Effective, and Fully Independent Judiciary”, judges called for urgent reforms, chief among them full institutional independence.

In the conference resolutions, the judiciary called for control over their own administration, budget, and operational functions. Without this, they say, judicial independence is compromised—and so too is the constitutional promise of justice.

Currently, the judiciary’s funding is fragmented. The Minister of Finance allocates funds across at least three different departments:

• The Department of Justice, for magistrates’ salaries, lower court operations, and shared corporate services like security and IT;

• The Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ), for judges’ salaries, superior court operations, and bodies like the Judicial Service Commission; and

• The Department of Public Works and Infrastructure, for court infrastructure, new court buildings, and maintenance.

The result? Courts rely heavily on the Executive for even basic resources like air-conditioning, backup generators, or library materials. This arrangement undermines judicial independence and accountability, as there’s always someone to pass the buck to.

A political bunfight over court administration

In 2009, then Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, working with then Justice Minister Jeff Radebe and President Jacob Zuma, initiated a series of ambitious reforms to ensure full independence of the judiciary.

First, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution made the Chief Justice head of the judiciary. Second, the Superior Courts Act placed some court administration and operations in the hands of judges president in each province. Third, a presidential proclamation in 2010 established the Office of the Chief Justice as a national government department responsible for the administration of the courts.

When Ngcobo’s term expired in 2011, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng took over the plan. At the time, it was envisaged that the OCJ would eventually take over all aspects of the judiciary’s administration, including budget, infrastructure, IT, human resources, security, and related functions. It was also hoped that magistrates’ courts would migrate to the OCJ. Significantly, the head of the OCJ would report directly to the Chief Justice. However, this was not to be.

During the mid-2010s, significant disagreement arose between the Executive (including then Minister of Justice Michael Masutha) and the Judiciary on the extent of these reforms. It is rumoured there was both petty bickering, over the transfer of magistrates’ courts (and their R5 billion budget) from the DOJ to the OCJ, and serious constitutional questions. Each national department has an executive authority who accounts to Parliament, would the Chief Justice subject himself to questioning over misspent funds?

These questions led to the reforms grinding to a halt around 2017/18. To avoid the issue of accounting to Parliament, the powerful Heads of Court forum resolved to establish their own Judicial Accountability Committee that would ‘account’ directly to the public through what is called Judiciary Day, hosted at the Constitutional Court. On that day, the Chief Justice would present a judiciary annual report and take questions from the crowd (including MPs), with a separate session for the media.

When Chief Justice Raymond Zondo took over after Mogoeng’s retirement in 2021, there was little hope he could move forward with judicial independence reforms without engaging the Executive. Indeed, at every Judiciary Day until his retirement in 2024, Zondo complained bitterly about the lack of progress, including no response from the President or the Minister of Justice on the judiciary’s proposal to have an Auditor General-style model of administrative independence. In his final address, Zondo threatened court action against the Executive.

Fresh impetus for judicial independence reforms

In light of all this, it was a watershed moment when, on 6 June 2025, the Presidency announced that President Ramaphosa had met with Chief Justice Maya to revive the reform drive toward full judicial administrative independence.
“This important engagement brought together the Executive and the Judiciary to reaffirm their shared commitment to building a stronger, more effective justice system, firmly anchored in the values of South Africa’s Constitution,” the statement read.

The President’s delegation included Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi, Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson, Public Administration Minister Mzamo Buthelezi, and Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana. The Chief Justice’s delegation included four heads of court (all of whom, ironically, were nominated by the President as Deputy Chief Justice).

Significantly, the Presidency statement signalled that discussions touched on a key point from the Judges Conference resolutions: the creation of a single judiciary (i.e., the transfer of magistrates’ courts from the DOJ to the OCJ).

“Key discussions focused on advancing the process to ensure institutional independence and unification of a single judiciary, and enhancing the capacity of the courts,” the statement read.

The statement is vague on other hot-button issues from the Judges Conference resolutions, including full independence over court infrastructure, budgets, security, HR, and IT. It simply notes:
“In collaboration with [other ministers], Minister Kubayi has prioritised improvements in court infrastructure, human resources, security, and judicial independence.”
No clear sign of Executive relinquishment, then.

However, the significance of the meeting itself and the joint statement should not be underplayed. In less than a year, momentum around judicial institutional independence has shifted, from acrimony and threats to at least some agreement on key issues. It has added fresh impetus to long-stalled reforms.

When courts fail, the Constitution’s promise becomes hollow.

Judicial independence affects everyone

Judicial institutional independence is not an abstract debate for judges, academics, or NGOs.
The erosion of judicial independence and delays in justice affect both the vulnerable and the powerful:

• The poor struggle to access basic rights;

• Crime goes unpunished;

• Businesses cannot enforce contracts;

• Economic growth slows.

When courts fail, the Constitution’s promise becomes hollow.

A strong, independent judiciary is not just the cornerstone of democracy, it is a guarantor of human rights and a foundation for economic stability.

The business community, civil society, and policymakers must heed the call for reform, not just for their own interests as court users, but also for the public good and the health of South Africa’s democracy.

A strong, independent judiciary is not just the cornerstone of democracy, it is a guarantor of human rights and a foundation for economic stability. Judicial inefficiencies erode investor confidence, discourage entrepreneurship, and impose hidden costs on business. When legal remedies are slow or unreliable, disputes spill into the streets, and informal power fills the void left by a faltering justice system.

Alison Tilley is a coordinator, and Mbekezeli Benjamin a research and advocacy officer, at Judges Matter.