Judicial Tribunal on Judge Mngqibisa-Thusi’s Late Judgments Takes Private Turn Amidst Public Interest

In a turn of events that has sparked discourse on transparency within the judicial system, the Judicial Conduct Tribunal investigating suspended Gauteng High Court Judge Nomonde Mngqibisa-Thusi has opted for in-camera proceedings. The Tribunal, led by retired Constitutional Court Judge Chris Jafta, has restricted media and public attendance as it delves into the case of the Judge's failure to deliver 21 judgments within an appropriate time frame.

The decision for seclusion came unexpectedly as it counters the prevailing practice of public tribunal hearings. The hearing initiated in Johannesburg has drawn particular attention for its concern with late judgments, an issue that poses significant implications for judicial efficiency and public trust in the legal system.

Judge Mngqibisa-Thusi's legal team, headed by Judge Gcina Malindi, cited personal aspects such as spirituality and the potential stigma related to it as reasons for requesting privacy, especially during testimonies. This move underlines the delicacy of combining personal life matters with professional responsibilities, presenting a complex scenario for the Tribunal to balance the privacy of an individual against the broader public good.

The Tribunal’s closure aligns with the Judicial Services Commission Act’s default stance on in-camera hearings, yet deviates from recent precedent, which favored openness, especially in similar tribunals. This pivot raised consternation from advocacy groups like Judges Matter, whose officer Mbekezeli Benjamin expressed surprise at the blanket ban. The organization intends to formally request access, emphasizing the public's need to understand the circumstances leading to the Judge's purported delays.

Judge Mngqibisa-Thusi’s case has shed light on the intricate relationship between judicial accountability and the personal predicaments of those in the judiciary. Although not contesting the delays, she is expected to present a defense anchored in individual challenges faced during the time in question. With the Judge President Dunstan Mlambo laying the complaint, the tribunal is set to probe into her incapability, incompetence, or gross misconduct.

The tribunal’s privacy arrives in the backdrop of similar proceedings, such as that of Pretoria High Court Judge Nana Makhubele, which remained open to public scrutiny. This prior openness had reinforced a norm of transparency, demonstrating the judiciary's commitment to public engagement, further complicating the current situation's reception.

As the private tribunal session continues in Johannesburg, with a schedule to conclude on February 2nd, the disconnection has sparked a vital conversation on the level of transparency owed to the public within judicial proceedings. The outcome, whether leading to impeachment or exoneration, will undoubtedly influence future protocols on how such tribunals are conducted, and whether openness or privacy will serve as the guiding principle within the South African judiciary.