HSF v JSC - Interlocutory Proceedings
Background Information
Various factors come into play in judicial appointments: gender and race must obviously feature in deliberations for judicial appointment. It is unclear, however, how heavily the question of judicial independence weighs on the collective mind of the Judicial Service Commission ("JSC").
A crucial factor which needs to be borne in mind is that judges should be preeminently qualified both in their formal training and their experience. The mix of, amongst other things, forensic skill, race and gender, and independence is a potent one which the JSC must handle with great care.
In 2012, at the conclusion of one such selection process, a member of the judiciary requested the reasons from the JSC for its decision to recommend to the President certain candidates for judicial appointment, and not to recommend certain other candidates for judicial appointment in the Western Cape High Court ("WCC") ("the Decision").
After considering the unsatisfactory reasons given by the JSC, the Helen Suzman Foundation ("HSF") launched judicial review proceedings in the WCC ("the main application") seeking an order declaring the Decision to be unlawful and/or irrational and invalid; alternatively, that the process followed by the JSC before making the Decision was unlawful and/or irrational and invalid.