The decision by Chief Justice, Sandile Ngcobo, to convene an inclusive conference on "Access to Justice" last week seemed an inspired move.

It could not have come at a better time. Never, in the 17 years of our democracy, has public confidence in equitable "access to justice" been so low.

The police persecution of the Public Protector, Advocate Thuli Mandonsela (following her investigation into allegedly corrupt leases for new police headquarters) has reinforced the widespread perception that the ANC's dominant faction abuses the criminal justice system to defend their allies and destroy those they perceive as their "detractors".

This selective application of justice began under President Thabo Mbeki. It has become the hallmark of Jacob Zuma's administration. It is the antithesis of the equitable access to justice that our constitution guarantees.

In these circumstances, who better than the Chief Justice to convene a summit to examine why the letter and spirit of our Constitution have been so seriously eroded? Who better to investigate what must be done to ensure that everyone is indeed "equal before the law"? And what better forum to discuss how to entrench this principle throughout the criminal justice pipeline? This includes the police, the prosecuting authority, the courts, the prison system, the Judicial Service Commission and, crucially, the Constitution's Chapter 9 institutions (such as the Human Rights Commission, the Independent Electoral Commission and the Public Protector).

Any "Access to Justice" conference would also have to consider other inhibiting factors, including poverty, the cost of litigation, the management and infrastructure of the court system, language barriers, the case backlog, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and public education.

These were on the conference agenda. But a primary focus on these issues in the belief that they adequately address the "access to justice" crisis in our country, is a denial of the core problem.

It is like a pregnant woman taking vitamin supplements to benefit her growing baby while continuing to drink copious amounts of alcohol. The effect of the latter will entirely negate the former. Unless we address the core problem -- the ANC's abuse of the criminal justice system for its own ends -- equitable access to justice will become more and more elusive, no matter how well the case load is managed, how accessible legal aid is, or how much the infrastructure improves.

So what should the agenda of an "Access to Justice" Conference include? There is so much material, one would have to make some key choices.

An entire session would have to be devoted to an analysis of the implications of the ANC's cadre deployment policy for the independence and competence of the criminal justice system. Perhaps the best starting point would be the seminal "Chapter 9 Review" co-authored by the late Professor Kader Asmal.

The 260-page report raised the alarm about the serious consequences of politicising these institutions through cadre deployment. It has since been ignored by the ANC and never debated in Parliament. There could be no better tribute to Asmal's legacy than a thorough debate of this report at an "Access to Justice" conference.

Such an analysis would let the genie out of the bottle. It would open up discussion of the unintended consequences of a provision in our constitution that enables those with the "right" political connections to elevate themselves above the law.

The President has the sole mandate to appoint the National Director of Public Prosecutions, or dismiss him with the support of the majority party in Parliament. The architects of our constitution clearly did not foresee a situation where a president's very political survival would depend on his power to fire an independent chief prosecutor and hire a compliant one.

An in-depth examination of the Vusi Pikoli saga (who was fired twice for refusing to be influenced by either Mbeki or Zuma's political interests) would be crucial. This would lead to an analysis of Mokotedi Mpshe's decision to drop the charges against Jacob Zuma; Mpshe's subsequent elevation to the bench; the highly controversial appointment of Menzi Simelane as the National Director of Prosecutions; the scrapping of the Scorpions and their replacement by the Hawks; and the decision to end the Arms deal investigation. All these events tell the same story: if you have the right political connections you can place yourself above the law.

Next up would be an analysis of the role of the former Public Protector Lawrence Mushwana (previously an ANC MP) in the ongoing cover-up of the Oilgate Scandal, in which funds were diverted from parastatal oil company PetroSA to the coffers of the ANC. Mushwana's report on the matter has been found to be a whitewash, and was set aside by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Mushwana is now chairman of the Human Rights Commission!

Then there is the saga of Judge John Hlophe who was accused by the full bench of the Constitutional Court of seeking to influence two of its members to make a finding favourable to Jacob Zuma in a matter before them. The Judicial Service commission inexplicably decided to drop an inquiry into the matter -- a decision that was overturned by a court on a technicality.

But selective justice does not only benefit the high and mighty. Its effects pervade the entire system, right down to the lowest echelons of the ANC food chain. There could be an entire session of an "access to justice" conference analysing why charges have not been brought against the scores of "cadres" implicated in corruption at every level of government.

It would analyse the many instances of power abuse such as Shabir Shaik's release from prison to buy his silence around the arms deal corruption. And it would ask why prominent members of the ANCYL seem to escape prosecution whatever they do -- including damaging state property (with the evidence broadcast on national television).

The other side of the selective justice coin is the abuse of the system to target influential individuals who do not align themselves with the ANC's political agenda. This manifests itself in many ways, ranging from repeatedly overlooking competent advocates for judicial appointment, to the appointment of "judicial commissions" for the purpose of smearing political opponents, the intimidation of journalists, and even instances of malicious arrest and prosecution. An analysis of this trend would require a full session at an "Access to Justice Conference".

It could start by examining the consequences for Deputy Chief Justice, Dikgang Moseneke, of his reported remarks, at his 60th birthday celebration, that he would apply the law impartially in the interests of society, adding: "it is not what the ANC wants or what the delegates want. It is about what is good for our people".

This perfectly self-evident and innocuous reference to judicial independence elicited a counter attack from the ANC's National Executive Committee. The message was clear. Anyone looking for further career prospects on the bench must have taken note.

There are many other questions that an Access to Justice conference would have to address such as: How do we prevent further manipulation of the criminal justice system as the ANC factions fight it out in the run-up to the Mangaung elective conference? Why is it so easy for the intelligence services to get a judge's approval to invade people's privacy through intercepting their communications without any credible evidence that a crime has been committed?

Who gives instructions to the police to intimidate and harass journalists and government opponents? Why do they comply? And above all: how do we, as a society, protect those in our criminal justice system who apply the law without fear or favour? In other words, how do we prevent Advocate Thuli Madonsela going the way of Advocate Vusi Pikoli?

Unsurprisingly none of these issues made it into the conference discussions.

The agenda I received did have a slot of one hour and ten minutes to discuss "Judicial Independence and Sustaining the Confidence of the Public in the Judiciary". And the speakers list included many distinguished members of the Judiciary, at home and abroad.

But the programme was also replete with politicians who have either been prime beneficiaries of selective justice or vigorous proponents of it.

President Zuma, the man who has spent tens of millions of Rands of taxpayers' money to avoid his day in court, gave the Keynote address. It was beyond parody. The irony of his presence at an ‘Access to Justice" conference was trumped only by what he said, presumably with a straight face. He began by extolling the virtues of a system where access to justice is a fundamental human and democratic right, and where everyone enjoys the right to equal protection and benefit from the law.

He supported the "separation of powers" that lies at the heart of any democratic constitution. He then asserted that the independence of the judiciary was adequately protected by the constitution, but argued that the executive was not sufficiently protected from interference by the judiciary!

In arguing that the courts could not supersede the voters' political mandate he missed the point that, no matter how powerful a ruling party is, it cannot do what it likes. It must abide by the constitution. A popular mandate does not place a governing party above the law. The courts are there to ensure this.

Watching Zuma's speech on television reminded me of apartheid Prime Minister John Vorster who (also with a straight face) warned South Africa's critics in the 1970s not to bring politics into sport. He seemed oblivious of the irony that it was the apartheid government that had brought racist politics into sport by prohibiting players of colour from inclusion in national teams.

The threat to our criminal justice system is NOT the judiciary's interference in the executive. It is the other way around.

The speakers' list also included Max Sisulu, the Speaker of the National Assembly. In 2009, before his appointment as Speaker, Sisulu was part of a panel tasked with assessing the performance of Parliament. The panel found, amongst other things, that executive interference in Parliament's arms deal investigation had seriously damaged its credibility.

It therefore recommended that parliament re-visit the matter and take steps to trigger a proper judicial commission of inquiry into the arms deal. In July that year, once Sisulu had been elected Speaker, the DA requested him to carry out the recommendation that he had co-authored only a few months previously. Needless to say, he never did. Yet another cadre complicit in the application of selective justice.

Then there was Justice Minister, Jeff Radebe, well known for "strong-arming" the Judicial Service Commission into postponing the appointment of judges until Radebe had altered the composition of the JSC in the ANC's favour.

Notwithstanding the many important problems in the justice system that were discussed, and which must be addressed so that ordinary people can exercise their basic rights, it is time for South Africa to hold a proper "Access to Justice" conference where core problems in our system can be fully examined. Until we do, all the fine words and speeches expended at these events, will merely serve as a diversion from the central issues undermining free and fair access to justice for all South Africans.

This article by Helen Zille first appeared in SA Today, the weekly online newsletter of the leader of the Democratic Alliance.

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter