Raulinga says former ANC membership has never influenced judicial decisions

Retired Judge Takalani Raulinga has defended his judicial independence after questions were raised about his former ANC membership, saying his political affiliation before joining the Bench has never influenced his work.

Raulinga also called on judicial officers to disclose their past associations, saying transparency was essential to protecting public confidence in the judiciary.

This comes after the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party lodged a formal objection with Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi over his appointment as the oversight judge for the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC).

The party has argued that Raulinga’s past political associations and friendship with President Cyril Ramaphosa create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The MK Party has called on Kubayi to appoint another oversight judge, arguing that Raulinga’s disclosed association with Ramaphosa could undermine public confidence in the independence of the office

Speaking at a media briefing on Sunday, Raulinga said the issue of his ANC membership had been raised repeatedly over the years, not only in relation to him but also other judges.

“This has been raised several times, not only about me, but about other judges,” he said.

Raulinga said many South Africans who participated in the struggle for freedom never imagined they would later become judges or hold public office.

“As we grow up, we never think that you will become a judge or a president or whatever. And I believe every young person in this country was fighting for freedom. And those who escaped it might have been very lucky, not all of us,” he said.

He said transparency about previous associations was essential to maintaining confidence in the judiciary.

Referring to the Latimer House Principles, which he helped draft while serving as vice-chairperson of the Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association of the Commonwealth, Raulinga said the principles require judicial officers to disclose their associations.

“I have done this myself. I think every judge must do it, because if you don’t, you will end up appointing wrong people, who may in secret do wrong things,” he said.

Raulinga said he had publicly declared that he was an ANC member before becoming a judge, but stressed that he had never held any position within the party.

“I have declared that before I became a judge, I used to be a member of the ANC. I never held any office in the ANC,” he said.

He said throughout his legal career he had taken an oath to act fairly and, upon his appointment as a judge, swore to uphold the law “without fear, without favour and without prejudice”.

“In all these instances, I took an oath of being fair, and not favour anybody. And when I became a judge, I took an oath without fear, without favour, and without prejudice. And I still commit to that.”

Raulinga challenged anyone seeking judicial office to be equally transparent about their past affiliations while remaining impartial.

“I challenge any person who wants to become a judge, to disclose his prior associations. And make sure that he remains impartial. And I will remain impartial.”

He said his judicial record demonstrated his commitment to independence.

“I’ve been impartial as a judge now for more than 19 years. And I think you have never heard me having been taken to the JSC for being impartial. So, even now, I want to commit myself to impartiality.”

Raulinga also rejected suggestions that the Independent Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) functions as an ombuds office, saying its mandate is to provide independent oversight.

“Our office is not an ombuds office. It is the office of the IDAC oversight,” he said.

He explained that the office investigates complaints from both members of the public and investigators within IDAC, making it an oversight body rather than a complaints office.

Addressing questions about his independence from the executive, Raulinga said although the minister appointed him and receives reports from his office, he remains accountable to Parliament.

”The minister might have appointed me. I report matters to her. In other words, all the complaints that we do are reported to the minister.

”I don’t have to say anything further to the minister. It’s just a question of reporting. Otherwise, I am accountable through the portfolio committee to Parliament, and which is appropriate,” he said.

Raulinga said his understanding of judicial independence had been shaped by decades on the Bench, international work on the separation of powers and judicial independence, and academic experience teaching jurisprudence.

“So those are concepts and principles that I understand very, very well. I’ve been a judge for such a long time. I’m still a judge now, and I am independent,” he said.

IOL Politics 

Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now