Winners of Judges Matter Essay Writing Competition 2024
Announcing the Winners of the 2024 Judges Matter Prize in Excellent Writing on the Judiciary
Judges Matter is thrilled to announce the winners of the 2024 Judges Matter Prize in Excellent Writing on the Judiciary! This annual competition, first launched in 2021, aims to inspire critical thinking and academic engagement with pressing issues affecting the South African judiciary.
About the Judges Matter Prize
The Judges Matter Prize seeks to foster deep reflection and creative thought on judicial matters among future legal professionals and academics. Each year, the competition challenges students to write insightful essays on topics related to the judiciary, encouraging fresh perspectives and original thinking.
For 2024, the essay topic was: Impeaching Judges – Challenge or Achievement? This thought-provoking theme focused on judicial accountability and the regulation of judicial conduct, primarily within South Africa, although students were welcome to explore comparative insights from other countries.
The competition was open to both undergraduate and postgraduate law students, with each category offering a R15,000 cash prize. Essays had to be written individually, in English, and follow the style guide of the South African Law Journal. Students were required to showcase original thought and high-quality writing, with strict rules against plagiarism. The winners are announced below, and all winners were invited to a prize-giving ceremony at UCT in Cape Town on Tuesday 17 September 2024.
Celebrating Excellence in Legal Writing
The Judges Matter Prize is designed to promote excellence in legal writing, encouraging students to address critical issues surrounding the judiciary with creativity, thorough research, and thoughtful analysis. Whether undergraduate or postgraduate, students demonstrated remarkable insight into the challenges and opportunities within judicial accountability.
We congratulate this year’s winners for their outstanding contributions to this vital conversation. you can read a summary and download their full essays on the links below. We are proud to be able to showcase the future voices shaping the judiciary in South Africa.
And the winners are:
- Undergrad first place: Celiwe Mxhalisa | Prize: R10 000
- Undergrad shared second place: Jandré van der Schyff| Prize: R2 500
- Undergrad shared second place: Vukile Nhlumayo | Prize: R2 500
- Postgrad first place: Aneeqah Meyer | Prize: R10 000
- Postgrad second place: Tendai Mikioni | Prize: R5 000
About the Undergraduate Category winners:
Celiwe Mxhalisa for her essay titled; “Impeachment Delayed is Integrity Denied”
2024 saw the end of a nearly twenty-year-long battle to impeach Judge Hlophe and Judge Motata. Rather than signify a ‘win’ for judicial accountability, these impeachments may be harbingers of a legitimacy crisis for both the judiciary and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). This essay argues that excessive delays – facilitated at both an individual and institutional level – in impeaching these judges are the main driving force of this issue. Individual integrity is diminished by indecorous conduct by judges-as-litigants, particularly their use of the Stalingrad technique. At an institutional level, integrity is undermined by the JSC’s failure to (timeously) hand down appropriate judgments. The essay also highlights gaps in the law and intra-judicial relations that have contributed to this crisis and presents potential solutions to this issue.
Watch Celiwe introduce their essay.
Jandré van der Schyff’s essay titled; Impeaching Judges: Challenge or Achievement? 
examines the pivotal role of judges in maintaining justice and how their conduct directly influences public trust in the judiciary. The essay argues that while the impeachment of a judge may seem like a challenge due to the complexities involved, it should be viewed as an essential achievement that strengthens judicial integrity. Judges, often regarded as the guardians of the Constitution, are held to the highest standards of impartiality and accountability. When they fail to uphold these standards, impeachment becomes necessary to preserve the judiciary’s integrity.
The essay refers to recent cases of judicial misconduct in South Africa, such as those involving Judge President John Hlophe and retired Judge Nkola Motata, who were impeached after being found guilty of gross misconduct. Despite the lengthy and expensive process, their removal is seen as a victory for judicial accountability. The essay stresses that allowing such judges to remain in power would undermine public confidence in the courts, which is critical in a democratic society. While acknowledging the drawbacks of the impeachment process, including political interference and delays, the essay concludes that impeaching unethical judges is a necessary step toward ensuring a stable and reliable judiciary that commands public trust.
Watch Jandré introduce his essay.
Read more about Vukile Nhlumayo’s essay titled The impeachment of Judges a snail’s adventure and a protracted exercise. 
I introduce the essay by setting out the ever-persistent challenge of impeaching judges and the causes behind this. These include protracted litigation between judges and the JSC, the infant processes of the JSC that have proved inadequate (in some respects) and unclear timelines for the Judicial Conduct Committees.
I proceed by looking at the constitutional and legislative framework for the impeachment of judges, the former being section 77(1) of the Constitution, and the latter being the judicial Service Commission Act 9 of 1994 (as amended). I then take a deep dive to the special cases of Dr John Hlophe and Mr Nkola Motata, the allegations surrounding their respective impeachments and the years it took to finalise their matters which were not without litigation.
I then set out a thorough examination of the challenges identified in the introduction. I consider the tenuous Hlophe saga, spanning more the 5 cases, as well as the Motata cases where the constitutional validity to certain sections of the JSC Act were unsuccessfully litigated. The relatively new processes for administering impeachments were also considered.
I conclude by making recommendation to deal with these challenges, inter alia, amendments to the JSC Act to include time bar clauses and the setting out of clear times frames for Judicial Conduct Committees in carrying out investigations.
Watch Vukile introduce their essay.
About the Postgraduate Category winners:
Read the summary of Aneeqah Meyer’s essay titled Impeaching Judges – Challenge or Achievement? below:
In
a historic moment, 2024 saw South Africa’s first two judicial impeachments since the start of its constitutional democracy. Against that background, the essay considers whether judicial impeachment is a necessary safeguard or whether it acts as a potential threat to judicial independence. Recognising that the final stage of impeachment cannot be divorced from the broader process, it considers how the three-step judicial impeachment process can be hamstrung by various political actors and at various points in the process. The essay uses the example of former Judge President John Hlophe, who was nominated to serve on the Judicial Service Commission subsequent to his impeachment. The essay considers how this may undermine the credibility of the judiciary as well as the rule of law.
South Africa is uniquely situated in Africa with regard to the strength of its Constitution and judicial institutions (especially in Africa), but the paper nonetheless considers how judicial impeachment has been abused and exploited for political manipulation in other African countries. As countries with similar constitutional democracies observe South Africa’s approach to handling judicial misconduct through impeachment, the situation serves as both a lesson and a warning. It highlights the fine line between judicial independence and accountability, emphasizing the continuous need to uphold integrity and protect the judiciary from political encroachment.
Ultimately, the paper concludes that while the recent impeachments reinforce the rule of law and demonstrate the legal system’s commitment to maintaining high ethical standards and accountability, additional procedural safeguards should be put in place to protect the judiciary from political interference, in line with the constitution’s mandate for an independent judiciary that applies the law without fear, favour or prejudice.
Watch Aneeqah introduce her essay.
Tendai Mikioni for his essay titled; 
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Decontaminating the Courtroom Through Impeachment — A Challenge or an Achievement?
In their essay, Tendai Mikioni addresses the question: “impeaching judges — a challenge or an achievement?” Mikioni argues that while impeachment is undoubtedly a significant achievement, it is also a challenging process. Referring to impeachment as a “challenging achievement,” Mikioni highlights the inherent difficulties involved, such as the time-consuming and costly nature of the process, and the potential to erode public confidence in the judiciary. However, these challenges do not diminish its accomplishments. According to Mikioni, impeachment enhances public trust, ensures transparency, promotes accountability, and upholds constitutional principles, with its benefits outweighing the difficulties.
Mikioni also emphasises that, despite losing some of its novelty, the phrase “with great power comes great responsibility” remains relevant in the context of judicial impeachment.
To improve the effectiveness of impeachment, Mikioni makes two key recommendations. First, judges under investigation should cease rendering judicial services. Referring to the cases of Judge Motata, who was impeached after retirement, and Judge Hlophe, whose impeachment and suspension occurred 14 and 16 years later, respectively, Mikioni argues that allowing judges to continue serving during investigations compromises the integrity of the judiciary. This, however, does not suggest that salaries should be withheld during the process. Secondly, Mikioni calls on the Judicial Service Commission to expedite these cases, as prolonged proceedings undermine confidence in the process and unnecessarily drain state resources.
No Comments