South Africa's Judiciary Faces Backlog: Over 200 Court Judgments Delayed

Hundreds of court judgments are overdue across South Africa, revealing significant backlogs and accountability issues within the judiciary. According to a report recently published by the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ), out of 1,383 judgments reserved from January to May, 239 are considered late. This revelation comes months after consistent inquiries by GroundUp, aimed at obtaining updated lists of reserved judgments.\n\nParticularly concerning is the High Court in Pretoria, leading with 59 judgments pending past the six-month mark, deemed late according to the norms set by judicial authorities. Following behind are the High Courts in Pietermaritzburg and Durban, and the Labour Court in Cape Town, each grappling with late judgments exceeding the expected timeframe for delivery.\n\nThe issue stems, in part, from systemic problems including severe resource constraints, as highlighted by Mbekezeli Benjamin from Judges Matter. Benjamin notes that these constraints significantly hinder court performance and timely judgment delivery. He emphasizes the importance of regular OCJ reports on reserved judgments for maintaining transparency and holding the judiciary accountable.\n\nThe lack of timely reporting by the OCJ compounded the issue, with delays in publication affecting the tracking and analysis of judgment delivery. Historically, the OCJ published these reports quarterly, facilitating a smoother evaluation of court performance. However, this practice has seen a reduction in frequency, leading to challenges in assessing and addressing delays effectively.\n\nIrregularities and inaccuracies further obscure the judiciary’s performance metrics. For instance, some cases, like the contentious matter between the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) and Lion of Africa, have been resolved, yet still appear on the OCJ’s list of reserved judgments. This raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the judiciary’s self-reporting mechanisms.\n\nIn response to queries regarding these delays, Judge President Cagney Musi, spokesperson for the OCJ, stated that standard practice does not entail providing reasons for judgment delays to non-litigants before delivery. However, discussions are ongoing among Judges Presidents to address and possibly rectify the concerns raised.\n\nTransparency within the judiciary remains a pivotal component of its integrity. Continuous efforts to publish reserved judgment reports and address resource limitations are essential in meeting the judiciary's commitment to timely justice delivery and strengthening public trust in legal institutions.