Special Hearings — Legal Hearings — 1997-10-27

MR VALLY: Very quick, because in view of the last comment about the Cape of Good Hope Law Society the name of the persons whose articles you people are allegedly refusing to register is Mr Justice Bekibeki. This is one of the persons from the Upington 26 and maybe you can give us more information on that at some point?

UNKNOWN: Sure.

MR VALLY: And then I've got a question here as to who moved for the removal of Mr Lewis Baker after his conviction and who decided not to repay his contribution to the provident fund, because he neither died nor resigned? The question comes from senior counsel.

UNKNOWN: To the best of my knowledge, he was removed by the Department of Justice and to the next best of my knowledge, the question of repayment, I do not know what happened, whether there was a request for repayment at the time that he was removed, but at the moment the amount is being discussed between the attorneys of the late attorney and the Fidelity Fund. So at the moment there is a discussion on how much he should be repaid and that centres on what was the value of money then and what should it be now and that kind of thing.
 I think there is also a problem about how much did he initially contribute. So if those problems are attended to then ...(intervention)

MR VALLY: But he will be repaid?

UNKNOWN: He will definitely be repaid. There's no doubt about that, it's only a question of how much.

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you.

MR LANGENHOVEN: I may also say that in that particular regard, the Transvaal Law Society issued a blank invitation to anybody if it is possible, to have posthumously a name reinstated, that we will attend to that. Even though we did not strike the particular person. We accept the fact that we could have come to his assistance at the time that the Department applied for the striking and we did not do so.

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you Mr Langenhoven. Hanif I'm not going to allow you to proceed, anymore questions on this side.
 I would just like to ask one question. Sorry, Ilan.

MR LAX: Thanks Chairperson. Sorry, you took my nod for a no. The one issue we are grappling with and we are going to have to grapple with, is the question of how do we make the judiciary, and I use it in its broadest sense, in some way accountable? How do we, apart from examining them through this process, the fact that they're not here - yesterday a suggestion came from Mr Wallace of the Bar Council that some process should be put in place for serving judges and magistrates through the Judicial Services Commission and possibly the Magistrates Commission. He didn't say that, but I'm adding it in as an obvious rider. What does the ALS think we should do or the nation should do and how should we dealt with the fact that there are clearly scores and scores of people within the judiciary who through their conduct and practice have clearly illustrated a disregard for human rights and who may well have now committed themselves to that sort of culture, but who in some way need to be called to account?

ASHFORD TRIKAMJEE: I think that probably have a forum and all one must do is to extend the powers of that forum and that's the JSC itself. You know, at the moment the JSC is there screening Africans for positions on the bench and I think that the moment the appointment is made, the JSC's function vis a vis that particular individual stops.
 I think the powers of the JSC should be increased so that it can actually consider complaints that are made against members of the judiciary, because it is an independent body. It represents a cross-section of the entire community in this country. In that way judges would know that apart from answering the kind of questions that they have to when they're making applications as potential judges, it doesn't end there; that their performances on the bench at all times is going to be subject to some kind of a review or some kind of an eye.
 I know it might cause all kinds of reactions from the judges, but I think that we've just got to be bold in our - when we made the appointment or rather when we created the JSC there was a hue and cry and outcry and what have you, but now everyone's accepted it as being a constructive process and I think that's the way to go.
 On the second leg I think the submissions made by Mr Wallace of the Bar Council is a constructive idea as well. In a way we would support that as well.
 We feel as attorneys that the idea that has been mooted all along and we think that inasmuch as there have been (...indistinct), that things have changed; that only persons from the ranks of senior counsel are eligible for the bench, I think that argument should never ever be entertained again, because that in itself creates an exclusivity.
 We feel that within the legal - that within the attorney's profession there innumerable people, people who have apart from anything else been victims of the past, who are more than suitably qualified to be members on the bench and who would then with their positions they'd be able to influence their colleagues to start to change their attitude and change their horizons. I think this is the way to go.

UNKNOWN: Just one last aspect while we're dealing with the JSC. Yesterday the Minister indicated that he felt that there should be much more transparency than is present with regard to the workings of the JSC. How does the ALS feel about that?

ASHFORD TRIKAMJEE: We have no problem with transparency at all and I think we can only support the Minister in his opinion as far as that is concerned. At the moment we get the impression that once an application is made it's discussed at the JSC forum and now with the media - with the limiting of media coverage on JSC hearings, we think that has not been a very good thing. We think the more transparent the whole function of the JSC, the better it would be in the interest of justice in the country.

YASMINE SOOKA: Thank you. I think you'll be heartened to know that the Minister has said in his submission yesterday that the JSC hasn't really reached its full potential yet.

MR POTGIETER: Just one question, Chairperson, in the context of transformation, what is the present state of play in regard to the attempts and amalgamation if I may put it that way, involving NADEL and the BLA and your constituent Law Societies?

ASHFORD TRIKAMJEE: Right. The process was started in July last year after there was an agreement by all three bodies to form a single body governing the profession in the form of a twenty-person-committee.  The twenty-person-committee basically being representatives from each of the nine provinces which will be new provincial societies. That has got on the way. There have been draft constitutions which have been prepared by technical committees appointed by all three bodies. We've gone to the last draft now which is the fifth draft and that one is now basically on the table for discussion by the three organisations.
 We at the ALS, and I think that the resistance one is going to get all the time from all three bodies within the bodies, I think people are naturally - some people are not accepting change easily, but we have committed ourselves and for me personally as president of the Association of Law Societies, if there's anything that I want to achieve during the short term of office that I'm going to be holding, is to put that process on track and get it going. One hopes that in the next three months, if not four months, the new body for the organised legal profession, would be in place.

MR POTGIETER: So you're positive about the progress that's been made ... (intervention).

ASHFORD TRIKAMJEE: Yes, extremely positive.

MR POTGIETER: Thank you.