Controversial Judgments Lead to Misconduct Charges Against High Court Judge Denise Fisher

Judge Denise Fisher of the Johannesburg High Court has recently come under scrutiny for her controversial rulings in cases involving the Road Accident Fund (RAF). Her assertive oversight in these matters has now led to the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) recommending she answer to charges of misconduct.

In 2021, Judge Fisher presided over two cases that have since become focal points of this dispute. Both cases entailed plaintiffs who claimed against the RAF represented by De Broglio Incorporated. Despite the agreements to settle, Judge Fisher took unusual steps in refusing these settlements and cast doubt on the trustworthiness of those involved. This sparked major reactions.

Her judicial decisions moved beyond the specific disputes and allegations of RAF's insolvency, leading to a series of accusations against the attorneys, medical experts, and an actuary involved, for which she ordered referrals to their respective professional bodies and further judicial scrutiny.

However, her approach triggered appeals which led to a dramatic turn of events. The Supreme Court of Appeal, in a unanimous judgment, found no evidence to support Fishers' claims, highlighting her reliance on external, non-evidential materials. Judge Fisher's determination to root out corruption and maladministration faced a legal check when the Court underscored the absence of any legal grounding for her sweeping findings.

De Broglio Inc. took the initiative to lodge a complaint against Judge Fisher. This move initially fell flat when dismissed by Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo. Persistence paved the way for the case to reach the JCC, where Deputy Chief Justice Mandisa Maya and other reputable judges reassessed and recognized potential breaches of judicial conduct by Fisher.

The JCC examined the situation where Judge Fisher had branded professionals as deceitful and corrupt without affording them the due process of addressing these allegations. This stands contrary to the principles laid down in the Code of Conduct for judicial officers, sparking serious questions about fair hearing standards.

The Judicial Conduct Committee's referral of the matter for inquiry is significant. It doesn't imply guilt but mandates a more profound exploration into the accusations against Judge Fisher. It indicates a balance between holding public officials accountable and ensuring the integrity of legal procedures and the judiciary's reputation.

The galaxy of legal principles around judging, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which insists on hearing both sides of an argument, provides a critical backdrop for this unfolding legal narrative. The saga embodies the delicate tension between judicial activism and the adherence to established legal protocols.

As South Africa watches on, the unveiling of this judicial drama illuminates the checks and balances of the judicial system. While the conclusion remains uncertain, the investigation's proceedings will continue to garner significant attention from the legal community and the public.