Fewer appointments, higher standards: What the October 2025 JSC session revealed

Earlier this month, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) convened for its biannual sitting to select the next crop of judges for the superior courts. For the October 2025 session, the JSC had to fill 24 vacancies at nine superior courts. These included the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, the Labour Court, and various provincial divisions of the High Court, including KwaZulu-Natal, Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Free State, and Limpopo.

After interviewing 51 candidates over the course of seven gruelling days, the JSC was only able to fill 16 of the 24 vacancies. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Since 2021, the JSC has been undergoing a major reform process to reposition itself as an institution that takes its constitutional duty seriously. This follows years of criticism that the JSC’s public interviews were little more than a spectacle where politicians aired grievances against judges.

In 2023, the JSC adopted new criteria and guidelines for interviews. These focus on the legal skills and ability of aspirant judges. The new criteria also give the Chief Justice powers to intervene and stop irrelevant or disparaging questions. Significantly, they commit commissioners to respecting the dignity of candidates during interviews. As a result, JSC interviews have improved markedly in terms of both the quality of questions and the general conduct of commissioners.

However, there are still loopholes. The JSC has yet to adopt a code of conduct or statement of ethical principles to enforce against commissioners who disregard the criteria and guidelines. Such a code would also assist nominating bodies, such as Parliament, in appointing suitable representatives to the JSC. Without it, the JSC remains vulnerable to being hijacked by commissioners who lack commitment to the high constitutional standards the body must uphold. Since 2022, Judges Matter has repeatedly urged the JSC to adopt a code of conduct for commissioners.

One Judges Matter proposal the JSC has acted on is amending the application form submitted by aspirant judges. These amendments closed a major loophole by requiring candidates to disclose information relating to their ethics and conduct. We proposed that the JSC include questions such as:

1. Whether a candidate has been found guilty of ethical misconduct or is under investigation by a professional or other body.

2. Whether they have ever had a court order against them, such as for insolvency, debt review, or maintenance, or have pending proceedings against them.

3. Whether they have been charged with or convicted of a crime, or are currently under criminal investigation.

While these questions might seem like obvious disqualifiers for judicial office, there was previously no way for the JSC to know such information unless disclosed. This made the inclusion of these questions essential, especially since similar provisions already applied in the magistrates’ appointment process.

Ahead of the October 2024 recruitment process, the JSC amended its form to include questions like these. Since then, several candidates have not been appointed based on their responses. This is one of the main reasons why the JSC filled only 16 of the 24 vacancies this time.

Seven candidates were shortlisted for two vacancies at the Constitutional Court. One of these vacancies has remained unfilled for four years, despite the enormous caseload the apex court is carrying, as reflected in its massively delayed judgments. Among the candidates were three Supreme Court of Appeal Justices (Nambitha Dambuza, Glenn Goosen, and Ashton Schippers), Labour Appeal Court Judge Kate Savage, senior advocate Alan Dodson SC, and law academic Dr Kate Malepe. The seventh candidate, Johannesburg High Court Judge Ingrid Opperman, withdrew shortly before the interviews.

In her form, Dr Malepe disclosed that she was undergoing debt review and had previously been accused (and subsequently cleared) of theft allegations at her church. These two issues dominated her interview, with several commissioners, particularly Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC, raising concerns. “I am worried about a judge being at the mercy of a magistrate to determine their fate in debt review proceedings,” he remarked pointedly.

Malepe was unable to answer these questions to the JSC’s satisfaction and, unsurprisingly, was the only one of the remaining six candidates not recommended for appointment.

Several other candidates were similarly not appointed due to issues disclosed on their forms.

KwaZulu-Natal High Court candidate Sanele Malizo Gwagwa faced tough questions for downplaying as an “administrative issue” the fact that the Legal Practice Council had suspended him based on a client complaint. He had disclosed the suspension on his form.

Likewise, Gauteng High Court candidate Stephens Thobane was not appointed after disclosing a suspension from legal practice for failing to submit the required audits for his firm. He also characterised this as “administrative”, but Commissioner Moboku Mangena disagreed, calling it an “ethical impairment”.

Gauteng High Court candidate Lesibana Ledwaba was also not appointed based on his response to a question about a dispute with his local bar over overcharging. Asked how it was resolved, Ledwaba said he had amended the invoice and reduced the amount—an answer that drew the ire of Ngcukaitobi.

While some non-appointments were due to ethical issues, others resulted simply from candidates not being up to the mark. Since adopting the new criteria in April 2023, the JSC has been more rigorous in assessing candidates’ suitability. Candidates are questioned on their legal knowledge, judicial temperament, and ability to produce quality judgments on time.

Professor Clement Marumoagae analyses each candidate’s judgments and probes their reasoning and application of the law. Commissioners Kameshni Pillay SC and Sesi Baloyi SC routinely ask about the flow, structure, and quality of judgment writing. Several parliamentarians focus on social context and adjudication in a constitutional democracy. Leading these discussions is the ANC’s Fasiha Hassan, who raises questions on topics ranging from AI and ethics to socio-economic inequality and transformation. Overall, the quality and rigour of JSC interviews have improved substantially.

However, there was a puzzling non-appointment at the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the JSC interviewed seven candidates but appointed none. Why? Several MPs, including Julius Malema and Glynnis Breytenbach, were absent during the interviews and voting. This meant only 17 commissioners voted (a candidate needs 13 votes for appointment). According to News24, the final tally was split 8–8 between Johannesburg Judge Leonie Windell and Eastern Cape Judge Thandi Norman (both of whom gave excellent interviews), with the final vote spoilt. As a result, none reached the required 13 votes.

The JSC decided not to revote, fearing a court challenge, as had occurred in 2023. The position will be re-advertised.

Responding to public criticism, JSC spokesperson Sesi Baloyi confirmed that the JSC will formally review its voting procedures to prevent such deadlocks in future. She also confirmed that the JSC will review its shortlisting processes, following public shock at the handling of Dr Malepe’s interview. This review will include considering new criteria for appointing law academics to the bench.

The JSC also found none of the three candidates for the Eastern Cape Deputy Judge President position suitable for appointment. The three senior judges, Buyiswa Majiki, Bulelwa Pakati, and Mandela Makaula, struggled to present a compelling vision for addressing the challenges facing the province’s courts, especially in Mthatha. Considering that the Judge President faces a complaint of sexual harassment, none of them responded adequately to questions about the new Sexual Harassment Policy for the Judiciary. Makaula even offered the startling advice: “Don’t hug colleagues, keep your zip up, and your mouth shut.”

Interviews for three vacancies in the Eastern Cape High Court were cancelled shortly before the JSC session, reportedly due to threats of litigation from a disgruntled applicant who had not been shortlisted.

While the JSC’s October session attracted attention for several missteps, it is encouraging to see the Commission’s ongoing commitment to quality and rigour in judicial appointments. It remains to be seen whether the forthcoming reviews will improve the shortlisting and voting processes, which now stand out as the JSC’s most glaring weaknesses.