The 2026 Judges Conference

THE 2026 JUDGES CONFERENCE: WHAT DOES JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE MEAN?

This week (13-17 July 2026), South African judges and magistrates meet in Durban for the Judiciary Conference 2026. This is the third major judicial conference since 1994 (after the 2003 Judges Symposium and the 2023 Judges Conference).

The theme of the 2026 conference is “Towards a Single, Institutionally Independent, and Accountable Judiciary”.

Why this theme?

The 2023 Judges Conference resolved on a proposal for the establishment of a single judiciary as the third, institutionally independent arm of the state.

What a “single judiciary” entails is that the judiciary (judges and magistrates, and the lower and superior courts) should be unified under a single structure or department. (Read more here.) Under the current model, the judiciary straddles the Department of Justice and the Office of the Chief Justice, reporting to both the Minister of Justice and the Chief Justice.

“Judicial institutional independence” is understood to mean that, like Parliament, the judiciary should have full control over court operations, including staffing, IT functions, infrastructure, budgets, security and other related administrative functions.

“Judicial institutional independence” is understood to mean that, like Parliament, the judiciary should have full control over court operations, including staffing, IT functions, infrastructure, budgets, security and other related administrative functions.

Ultimately, it is envisaged that the entire judiciary, both the lower and superior courts, including related entities such as the SA Judicial Education Institute, should operate within a single institutional framework under the control of judges themselves. This is sometimes called a single, judiciary-led administration.

Likewise, there should be harmonisation of the standards applicable across the judiciary, including the Norms and Standards for Court Performance, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the remuneration and conditions of service for all judicial officers, judges, and magistrates.

The conference further resolved that work must begin to make this a reality before the next conference.

The proposed model for judicial institutional autonomy

In implementing the 2023 resolution, a study was commissioned in 2024 by a committee chaired by retired Judge President Bernard Ngoepe. The Ngoepe Report proposes a model for the judiciary to be implemented in stages to ensure full judicial institutional independence.

The core components of that model include:

• The establishment of a Judicial Council, comprising the Heads of Court and chaired by the Chief Justice, serving as the executive authority of the Judiciary. It will have overall responsibility for the Judiciary’s policies and functions, including preparing its annual budget for presentation to Parliament and overseeing all entities within the judiciary, such as the OCJ.
• The Office of the Chief Justice will act as the executive arm of the Judiciary, responsible for the administration of court operations, including budgeting and finance, court infrastructure, staffing, IT and procurement, among other functions. It will be established by standalone legislation. The OCJ will be headed by the Secretary General, with staff appointed or transferred into it, and will be overseen by the Judicial Council. Over time, all court operations (including lower court operations) would fall exclusively within the OCJ.
• A Courts Advisory Body – a larger body chaired by the Chief Justice and including the Minister of Justice, and one representative each for the judges president, the chief magistrates and regional court presidents, law professors, Parliament, traditional leaders, Chapter 9 institutions supporting democracy, and two legal practitioners. As the name suggests, the Courts Advisory Body will be responsible for advising the Judicial Council on any issue referred to it by the Council.
• An executive committee of the Judicial Council, comprising the Chief Justice, the Secretary General, and up to three other members of the Judicial Council, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the OCJ and court operations generally.
• Judicial standards such as the Norms and Standards for Court Performance and the Judicial Code of Conduct will be harmonised across all superior and lower courts. It is not clear at this stage whether judicial standards bodies such as the Judicial Service Commission and the Magistrates Commission will be merged into a single body.
• Over time, judicial institutions such as the Rules Board for the Courts of Law, the SA Judicial Education Institute, and the Judicial Service Commission and Magistrates Commission would all be housed under a single entity (the OCJ), rather than straddling two.
• It is also proposed that court infrastructure will be transferred from the current Department of Public Works and Infrastructure to the OCJ.
• Judicial remuneration and conditions of service are also intended to be harmonised under one structure – a Judicial Remuneration Commission that will determine the salaries, benefits and conditions of service of all judicial officers.

In a June 2025 address marking 30 years of the Constitutional Court, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that his government would support full institutional autonomy of the judiciary and would instruct the Minister of Justice to make this a reality.

In several addresses, Justice Minister Mamoloko Kubayi has announced her support for full judicial institutional autonomy. This includes an announcement that, by April 2026, certain major court functions, such as library subscriptions, security, and IT, would be transferred from the DOJ to the OCJ. Further work, including legislative amendments, will be handled by a joint task team comprising Department of Justice officials and judiciary officials.

While the work towards establishing the judiciary as an institutionally autonomous entity is underway, there are some questions regarding its full implementation that linger:

• What does the concept of the “single judiciary” mean in practice? Will magistrates also be transferred from the DOJ to the OCJ under the authority of the Judicial Council, thereby forming a single judiciary from the bottom to the top? The Ngoepe Report leaves this question for a future phase of implementation, but magistrates themselves have been advocating for this transfer to be prioritised, even in the initial stages.
• The Judicial Council, as proposed, is a powerful body but is made up exclusively of the heads of the superior courts. While modelled on an Irish example, it lacks any democratically elected members, which are essential to building legitimacy. Was this factor considered in the South African model?
• Likewise, while the Courts Advisory Body is structured like a corporate board and is more democratically representative, it is envisaged as only an advisory body to the Judicial Council. It is not clear whether it has any oversight function, which, in turn, would give the Judicial Council greater democratic legitimacy.
• The Judicial Council is envisaged as the main body that would account to Parliament for the courts’ mandate and operations. What would this accountability look like in practice? Would its members present annual and quarterly reports to a parliamentary committee? And does the Judicial Council owe any accountability to the Courts Advisory Body, whose members are drawn from the legal community?

All of these questions will hopefully be answered in the fullness of time.

The 2026 Judiciary Conference is likely to shed light on them, as its main theme is “The Future of a Single, Independent, Effective and Accountable Judiciary”.

Mbekezeli Benjamin is Research and Advocacy Officer at Judges Matter, a project of the Democratic Governance and Rights Unit at the UCT Law Faculty that monitors the South African judiciary.