Law Society to name and shame lazy Judges
Oarabile Mosikare | Friday February 10, 2017 11:57
Speaking during the Opening of the Legal Year this week, LSB chairperson Kgalalelo Monthe said they resolved to create measures to name Judges whose judgments are delayed beyond the 90 days from the time that the matter is concluded.
“The 90 days is a measure that the High Court has set for itself for delivery of judgements. The Society will publish details of the cases indicating dates when the matter was concluded as well as the name of the concerned Judge.
It is common cause that such practice above does not apply to all the Judges. It will therefore be proper to name the concerned the Judges and not paint the entire Bench with one brush,” said Monthe.
He said over the years, the Society has noted with concern delayed delivery of Judgements. Despite assurance that all is well provided by the Administration of Justice (AOJ) through statistics, many legal practitioners, litigants and accused persons have a different story to tell.
“Matters under certificate of urgency and summary judgements sometimes have a judgement delivered more than a year after the proceedings were launched and arguments completed. This, therefore defeats the purpose of both procedures to the detriment of litigants,” Monthe added.
The veteran attorney asserted that notwithstanding praises that may be showered upon the Judicial Case Management System (CMS), for as long as the system is not followed to the letter, it will not deliver.
This, in large measure is due to matters being repeatedly set down for status hearings while the court or litigants or legal practitioners avoid going to the merits of the matter. He decried that such repeated appearances come at a cost to the litigants who have to bear legal fees. He implored the Chief Justice (CJ) Maruping Dibotelo to take a more effective approach on this matter as accusations by some Judges that such action will amount to judicial interference is simply not correct.
“A demand by the CJ as administrative head of the Judiciary that a Judge should deliver a Judgement in a timely manner, cannot by any stretch of imagination amount to judicial interference as he does tell the Judge how to decide a matter.”