THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case no: 550/2022
In the matter between:

FREEDOM UNDER LAW (RF) NPC
APPELLANT

and

JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT
NKOLA JOHN MOTATA
SECOND RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:
Freedom Under Law v Judicial Service Commission and Another
(Case no 550/2022) [2023] ZASCA 103 (22 June 2023)
Coram:
PONNAN, MOCUMIE and SCHIPPERS JJA and KATHREE-
SETILOANE and MASIPA AJJA
Heard:
11 May 2023
Delivered:
22 June 2023
Summary:
Section 177 of the Constitution – removal of judge from office – Judicial
Conduct Tribunal finding Judge guilty of gross misconduct – no justification for the
Judicial Service Commission (JSC) rejecting the findings and conclusion of the Judicial
Conduct Tribunal – matter remitted for it to be dealt with by the JSC in terms of s 20(4)
of the Judicial Service Commission Act 9 of 1994.

___________________________________________________________________

ORDER
___________________________________________________________________
On appeal from: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (Nhlangulela
DJP, sitting as court of first instance):
The appeal is upheld, and the cross appeal is dismissed, in each instance with
costs, including those of two counsel.
The order of the court below is set aside and substituted by:
‘1. The application succeeds with costs, including those of two counsel.
2. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for it to be dealt with in terms of
Section 20(4) of the Judicial Service Commission Act 9 of 1994.’
___________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
Ponnan JA (Schippers JA and Kathree-Setiloane AJA concurring):

‘The judge is the pillar of our entire justice system, and of the rights and freedoms
which that system is designed to promote and protect.’1

[1] As Lord Phillips observed in Re Chief Justice of Gibraltar:
‘A summary of the standard of behaviour to be expected from a judge was given by Gonthier
J when delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Therrien v Canada
(Ministry of Justice) and another [2001] 2 SCR 3:
“The public will therefore demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a
judicial function. It will at least demand that they give the appearance of that kind of conduct.
They must be and must give the appearance of being an example of impartiality,
independence and integrity. What is demanded of them is something far above what is
demanded of their fellow citizens.”
While the highest standards are expected of a judge, failure to meet those standards will not
of itself be enough to justify removal of a judge. So important is judicial independence that
removal of a judge can only be justified where the shortcomings of the judge are so serious

1 Moreau-Berube v New Brunswick (Judicial Council) [2002] 1 SCR 249; 2002 SCC 11 at 286 (Moreau-
Berube).

as to destroy confidence in the judge’s ability properly to perform the judicial function. As
Gonthier J put it at paragraph 147 of the same case:
“. . . before making a recommendation that a judge be removed, the question to be asked is
whether the conduct for which he or she is blamed is so manifestly and totally contrary to the
impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary that the confidence of individuals
appearing before the judge, of the public in its justice system, would be undermined, rendering
the judge incapable of performing the duties of his office.”’2
That is the issue that confronts us in this appeal – namely, whether the conduct
encountered here is of such a kind as to render the second respondent, Judge Nkola
John Motata, incapable of performing the duties of his office.

[2] In the early hours of 6 January 2007, Judge Motata attempted to execute a U-
turn whilst driving his vehicle along Glen Eagles Road in Hurlingham, Johannesburg,
when he reversed into the boundary wall of a residential property owned by Mr Richard
Baird. Having been informed telephonically of the incident by Mr Lucky Melk, the
tenant of the property, Mr Baird arrived at the scene, whereafter he contacted the
police. Whilst waiting for the police to arrive, Mr Baird took a number of photographs
of the vehicle and of the driver, Judge Motata, who was still seated behind the steering
wheel in the driver’s seat.

[3] In the course of those events, Judge Motata became involved in a verbal
altercation with Mr Baird. Mr Baird formed the view that Judge Motata was inebriated.
When two female officers of the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department (the
JMPD) arrived at the scene Judge Motata refused to co-operate with them. When one
of the officers, Ms Paulina Mashilela, informed him that she would arrest him, he
responded that he would not be arrested by a female officer. She also suspected that
he was under the influence of alcohol. The two female JMPD officers had to call for
assistance. The two male officers, who responded, encountered similar resistance,
but they eventually managed to handcuff Judge Motata, remove him from his car and
arrest him.

[4] Using his mobile phone, Mr Baird recorded some of the events as they
unfolded. Those recordings are telling. They reveal Judge Motata making racist

2 Re Chief Justice of Gibraltar [2009] UKPC 43 paras 30 and 31.

utterances, resorting to profanities and employing derogatory language, the most
notable of which ran thus:
‘JUDGE MOTATA: Yes, but you know all of you, let me tell you most of us this is our world, it
is not the world of the boers. Even if they can have big bodies, South Africa is ours.
WITNESS 1: But sir, the problem is you drove into his wall.
JUDGE MOTATA: Even if I can drive into it I will pay it. It is not a problem that I can pay for
the wall but he must not criticize me. There is no boer who will criticize me, (indistinct) what
he thinks.
WITNESS 1: But Mr you of the law person.
JUDGE MOTATA: Yes I am the man of the law, I am saying if I knocked his wall. . .
(intervenes).
WITNESS 1: Do you know the law of. . . (intervenes).
JUDGE MOTATA: Yes I know the law. Let me go to the law. I do not care about him. Yes he
must not look at me as a black man. Let me go before the law. That is how much I owe him
for the wall which I broke down.
WITNESS 1: But then it is not good to insult him.
JUDGE MOTATA: Fuck him, fuck him, he must not insult me. I say fuck him. Anybody who
insults me, I say fuck you.’

[5] Following upon the events of 6 January 2007, Judge Motata was charged with:
(i) a contravention of s 65(1)(a) of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996, namely
driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and, in the
alternative, with two further statutory contraventions under that Act (count 1); and, (ii)
defeating the ends of justice, and, in the alternative, with having resisted arrest in
contravention of s 67(1)(a) of the South African Police Act 68 of 1995 (count 2). He
pleaded not guilty to all the charges. However, on 2 September 2009, and following a
trial, he was convicted by the Regional Division of the Magistrates’ Court, Pretoria (the
trial court) of the main charge on count 1 and acquitted on both the main and
alternative charges on count 2.

[6] The trial court found that much of Mr Baird’s testimony about Judge Motata’s
voice, manner of speech and uncooperativeness was borne out by the recordings. It
was further satisfied that, given Judge Motata’s proven speech, physical and mental
impairment, as also his general conduct shortly after the collision, the only reasonable
inference was that Judge Motata was indeed under the influence of intoxicating liquor

at the time that he drove his vehicle into the wall. Judge Motata’s appeal against his
conviction to a Full Bench of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (the
appeal court) failed.3

[7] On 29 November 2010, the appeal court confirmed his conviction. The appeal
court found it ‘extremely improbable that any High Court judge in his or her sober
senses would use the kind of foul language used by the appellant in the presence of
– to him – unknown members of the public and police officers – some of whom being
women’. Likewise, the appeal court found that it was ‘extremely improbable that any
High Court judge in his or her sober senses would make the kind of racist remarks
uttered by [Judge Motata] in public’.

[8] In a country with a lively press, the media, perhaps anxious for copy, did not
shrink from reporting on both the events at Mr Baird’s home and the ensuing criminal
trial. Over time, three complaints came to be lodged against Judge Motata with the
first respondent, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The first was a complaint by
the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace lodged on 8 January 2007 (the CCJP
complaint). It requested the JSC to investigate ‘Judge Motata’s actions which, if
accurately reported . . . bring disgrace on him, the judiciary and undermine public
respect’.

[9] The second, which was lodged on 5 July 2008 by AfriForum,4 ‘officially
request[ed] the [JSC] to initiate the process in terms of [s] 177 of the Constitution . . .
in order to remove [him] permanently from his position as judge because of his gross
racist misconduct’ (the AfriForum complaint). The AfriForum complaint alleged that
Judge Motata had made ‘crass racist remarks regrading whites’ and that:
‘A judge should be able to act in the interest of all communities without any prejudice. Any
judge who makes himself guilty of racist conduct, like Judge Motata according to the audio
recording did, therefore has no place on the judges’ bench. Such a judge betrays the public’s
confidence in the judicial system.’

3 Motata v S (A345/2010) [ZAGPJHC] 134 (29 November 2010).
4 AfriForum is an association incorporated not for gain in terms of s 21 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973.

[10] The third complaint was lodged by Mr Gerrit Pretorius SC, a senior advocate at
the Pretoria Bar (the Pretorius SC complaint). On 6 April 2011, he wrote to the JSC:
‘I expected the Judicial Service Commission (“JSC”) to have taken judicial notice of the
completely unacceptable conduct of the honourable Mr Justice Motata. As far as I can
ascertain, it is the first time that a sitting judge is mentioned in a legal publication (Juta’s Digest
of South African Law 4 March 2011 page 4) as a convicted accused. I respectfully submit that
this is sufficient reason why the learned judge should no longer be a judge. Added to this are
his public protestation that he was not drunk, never recanted, and the finding of the trial court,
confirmed on appeal, that this statement was untrue, as well as his wholly unacceptable drunk
tirades.
To the extent that it is necessary to have an independent complaint, I submit this complaint. I
apologise for its lateness.’

[11] On 10 May 2011, Pretorius SC amplified his complaint as follows:
‘All I want to add to my original written complaint is that I have yet to meet anyone who does
not regard the Judge’s conduct as wholly inappropriate and incompatible with the office of a
Judge. His conduct not only caused the office to be the object of ridicule, but his false denial
that he was drunk strikes at the heart of the judiciary’s integrity. It is one thing for an accused
person to put the State to the proof of its case. It is entirely a different position for a Judge to
publicly state a fact which he knows is false, build a defence on such an untruth and then
accuse witnesses of manipulating evidence and being racist.’

[12] All three complaints were considered by the Judicial Conduct Committee (the
JCC) of the JSC on 14 May 2011. The Pretorius SC complaint was noted, but not
considered at that time because it had not been under oath. Nothing came of the CCJP
complaint because the JCC took the view that it was a general invitation to conduct an
investigation and that it, like the Pretorius SC complaint, was also not under oath. With
regard to the AfriForum complaint, the JCC decided in terms of s 16(4)(b) of the
Judicial Service Commission Act 9 of 1994 (the JSC Act) that the complaint, if
established, would prima facie indicate gross misconduct by Judge Motata and
accordingly recommended that it be investigated by a Judicial Conduct Tribunal (the
Tribunal). On 22 May 2011, Pretorius SC deposed to an affidavit in compliance with s
14(3)(b) of the JSC Act, in which he confirmed the facts set out in his letters dated 6
April and 10 May 2011.

[13] Judge Motata unsuccessfully sought, on procedural grounds, to forestall
consideration of the AfriForum complaint by the Tribunal. According to the presiding
judge who heard the application, Judge Motata had alleged that ‘as Parliament had
not approved a Code of Judicial Conduct there was no basis upon which [he] could be
charged with misconduct and . . . therefore demanded that the [JSC] should “stop the
process” in connection with the complaints of misconduct and allow [him] to resume
his duties immediately’.5 Those arguments did not find favour with the court and his
application was accordingly dismissed.

[14] The JCC considered the Pretorius SC complaint at a hearing held on 5 October
2012. And, after hearing submissions from both Pretorius SC and Judge Motata’s legal
representatives, the JCC decided that the complaint, if established, would also, prima
facie, indicate gross misconduct on the part of Judge Motata. The JCC thus
recommended that this complaint should also be investigated and reported on by a
Tribunal.

[15] Based on the recommendations of the JCC, the JSC resolved, on 16 October
2012, to request the Chief Justice to appoint a Tribunal to investigate the complaints.
The Tribunal was appointed on 4 March 2013. It consisted of Judge President AN
Jappie (as chairperson), Justice NC Dambuza, a Judge of the Supreme Court of
Appeal, and Mr A Lax, an attorney of the High Court of South Africa.

[16] Judge Motata once again instituted legal proceedings. This time, he sought,
again on technical grounds, to challenge aspects of the JSC Act. This challenge too
was ultimately unsuccessful.6 It was dismissed on 30 December 2016. In the course
of dismissing the application with costs, the presiding judge observed: ‘[Judge Motata]
has delayed launching this application. This application is surprisingly sparse on facts’.
The learned judge added:
‘[101] Third: [Judge Motata] fails to account not only for his criminally proven conduct but also
his reasons for delaying this application. Furthermore, the material omissions in his

5 Motata v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others [2012] ZAGPPHC 196 para
6.
6 Motata v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another [2016] ZAGPPHC 1063.

submissions call for an explanation. He is no ordinary litigant. As a member of the judiciary he
remains accountable for his acts and omissions.’
. . .
‘[104] To paraphrase the Constitutional Court in Nkabinde: In conclusion, I would be failing in
my duty if I did not take this opportunity to emphasise that it is in the interests of justice that
the matter of the complaint against the applicant should be dealt with and concluded without
any further delay. The events that gave rise to the complaint occurred in 2007. Nine years
later, the matter has not been finalised. It is in the interests of justice that this matter be brought
to finality.’
Judge Motata then sought direct access to the Constitutional Court, which was refused
on 17 May 2017.

[17] After conducting a hearing, at which Mr Kallie Kriel, on behalf of AfriForum,
Pretorius SC and Judge Motata testified and, after having considered the record of the
criminal trial and appeal proceedings, the Tribunal concluded that Judge Motata’s
conduct constituted gross misconduct and recommended to the JSC that the
provisions of s 177(1)(a) of the Constitution be invoked.

[18] On 16 April 2018, the JSC wrote to AfriForum, Pretorius SC and Judge Motata
to furnish them with a copy of the Tribunal report and invited submissions or written
representations. On 2 May 2018, AfriForum submitted representations. Judge
Motata’s representations followed two days later. On 2 June 2018, the JSC convened
to deliberate on the Tribunal report. It resolved to set up a committee ‘to draft a report
on behalf of the [JSC]. Once the report has been produced, it will be examined and [a]
final decision will be taken’.

[19] By the time the JSC met again to consider the matter on 1 October 2018, three
reports had been prepared by the committee. The following is recorded:
‘44.
Thus, after lengthy debate, and while concerns regarding the procedural propriety of
the entire process stemming from Smuts SC’s involvement therein were still on the table, the
JSC conducted a vote by secret ballot in respect of the following issue:
44.1
“Whether the JSC should accept the finding of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal that Judge
Motata has rendered himself guilty of gross misconduct, as envisaged in section 177 of the
Constitution.”
45.
The outcome of that vote was as follows:

45.1
“Total number of votes received, yes six. No eight. Total number of votes cast fifteen,
total number of abstentions one, total number of spoilt votes, zero. Minority votes received
yes. The JSC will not accept the finding of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal that Judge Motata
has rendered himself guilty of misconduct as envisaged in section 177 of the Constitution.”
46.
The JSC then turned to discuss, inter alia, what (if any) finding of misconduct should
be made against Judge Motata in respect of the AfriForum and Pretorius SC complaints, what
sanction would be appropriate, and how (and by whom) the report on the JSC’s decision would
be prepared. These discussions continued until 2 October 2018. By this stage, however, the
decision not to recommend Judge Motata’s impeachment had already been made.’

[20] On 10 October 2019, the JSC convened to finalise the matter. The JSC’s report
of its decision consists of four parts: (a) A summary of the JSC’s findings and decision
entitled ‘Decision of the [JSC] in the Matter of Judge Nkola John Motata’ dated 10
October 2019 (the majority decision); (b) a Majority Report, comprising three
submissions (the majority report); (c) a Separate Concurring Opinion; and, (d) a
Minority Report (the minority report). The majority decision, which was signed by the
Chief Justice, inter alia, reads:
‘6.
After much deliberation, the majority of the JSC decided to reject the JCT’s
recommendation. The majority of the JSC finds that Judge Motata’s conduct did not
constitute gross misconduct.
7.
A minority dissented. They agreed with the recommendation of the JCT.
8.
The majority of the JSC considered that it was not necessary for the JSC to revisit the
criminal conviction and the reasons articulated therein by the Court.
9.
However, the majority of the JSC was disturbed by the manner in which the complaint
of misleading the court was generated. It has transpired that Advocate Izak Smuts SC,
who was at the time a member of the JSC, approached the ostensible complainant,
Advocate Gerrit Pretorius SC, and requested him to lodge the complaint on the
grounds that the AfriForum complaint was seemingly “insufficient” to secure a guilty
finding.
10.
What is of concern is not so much that Advocate Smuts SC was the source of the
complaint. In terms of the applicable law, any person, including a member of the JSC,
may lodge a complaint. However, Advocate Smuts SC failed to disclose his role as the
originator or instigator of the complaint. Furthermore, Advocate Smuts SC sat in and
actually chaired the deliberations of the JSC, which resolved to refer the matter to the
JCT. This he did after the Chief Justice and the President of the SCA had deliberated

at length on the issue of bias or perceived bias. Smuts SC contributed to the debate.
He had a clear obligation to disclose and recuse himself.
11.
Such conduct was in breach of one of the principles of justice which offers protection
against bias or perceived bias. The Pretorius complaint can accordingly not stand.
12.
As to whether this irregularity would operate to taint the entire proceedings was a
matter of some debate which was left unresolved. There can be no doubt that, but for
the intervention of Advocate Smuts SC, the “Pretorius complaint” would not have
arisen, alternatively, would have been dealt with differently.
13.
It was the view of the majority of the JSC that in spite of the above and due to the
public importance of this matter, the facts that led to the conviction still needed to be
taken into account despite the procedural flaw identified above. In any event that flaw
relates to only one complaint, that of Pretorius SC.
14.
The conduct that led to his conviction and sentence by the criminal Court amounts to
misconduct. More specifically, the majority of the JSC found that the racially loaded
utterances made by Judge Motata were unbecoming of a Judge, notwithstanding the
majority’s acceptance that his responsibility was diminished by his proven intoxication
and provocation in the form of the alleged use of the k-word by the owner of the house.’

[21] The majority of the JSC thus rejected the Tribunal’s recommendation. It found
Judge Motata guilty of misconduct simpliciter and imposed a fine of R1 152 650.40 to
be paid to the South African Judicial Education Institute.

[22] On 21 July 2020, the appellant, Freedom Under Law (FUL), issued an
application out of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (the high
court) to review and set aside the JSC’s decision of 10 October 2019, and to substitute
that decision with a finding that Judge Motata is guilty of gross misconduct as
contemplated in s 177(1)(a) of the Constitution, alternatively, for the matter to be
remitted to the JSC to be decided afresh taking into account the findings of the court.
FUL contended that Judge Motata’s conduct constituted gross misconduct, which
warranted his removal from office in terms of s 177 of the Constitution. It submitted
that the JSC’s decision to the contrary was irrational, unreasonable, unlawful and
accordingly unconstitutional and invalid. FUL raised six grounds of review.

[23] The high court rejected all of FUL’s grounds of review. It dismissed the review
application based on the AfriForum complaint; remitted the determination of the

Pretorius SC complaint to the JSC for a decision to be made thereon; and, ordered
each party to pay its own costs. In a written judgment delivered on 12 April 2022, the
high court (per Nhlangulela DJP) issued the following order:
‘[48]
In the result the following order shall issue:
1. The review application based on the Afriforum Complaint is dismissed.
2. The determination of the Pretorius Complaint is remitted back to the First Respondent for a
decision to be made thereon in terms of s20 of the JSC Act 9 of 1994.
3. Each party to pay its own costs of the application, including those incurred in the application
for condonation.’

[24] FUL applied for leave to appeal, and the JSC applied for leave to cross-appeal
paragraph 48(2) of the high court judgment. Both applications succeeded. Leave was
granted to this Court. Judge Motata did not participate in the proceedings either in this
Court or the one below.

[25] Parenthetically, it is necessary to make three observations: First, the
composition of the JSC did not remain constant when the matter was discussed.
Despite several changes in its composition as the matter progressed, the JSC simply
picked-up its deliberations whence previously left off. Second, the JSC chose to
oppose both the application in the high court and the appeal before this Court. This,
despite the evident difficulty that the matter had occasioned it; having split eight to six,
with one abstention. Moreover, there had been serious dissensus within its own ranks.
It is thus somewhat surprising that it resolved to defend the majority decision, instead
of simply abiding the decision of the courts. Third, and, this links to the second, having
resolved to oppose the application, its Secretary, Mr Chiloane, deposed to the
answering affidavit that came to be filed in opposition to the application. Although he
was not a member of the JSC and could not have participated in any of the
deliberations or decision-making, he asserted that ‘the facts . . . are within my personal
knowledge and are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, both true and correct’.

[26] Unsurprisingly, in its replying affidavit, FUL challenged that assertion:
‘10. The JSC’s answering affidavit is deposed to by Mr Chiloane. Mr Chiloane speaks widely,
broadly and with alleged authority about what the JSC decided, what its reasons and
reasoning were, what motivated it to act in a particular way and what factors it took into

account. Mr Chiloane is not a member of the JSC or the JSC majority which took the Decision
and issued the submissions which formed the basis of the Decision. He is simply not in a
position to speak with personal knowledge to any of the issues on which he professes to
express a factual view. Almost the entirety of his affidavit is hearsay and falls to be
disregarded.’

[27] Had the JSC merely participated with a view to placing the record of its
deliberations before the court to assist it in its consideration of the matter, there could
hardly have been any objection to Mr Chiloane deposing to an affidavit for that
purpose. Not so, once it had decided to oppose the application. As a lay witness it was
simply not open to him to depose to all manner of opinion evidence. Mr Chiloane’s
affidavit was not accompanied by even a single confirmatory affidavit from any of those
persons with personal knowledge of the facts. The high court approached the
evidential material proffered by Mr Chiloane in his affidavit as if it constituted proof of
the truth of the matter so asserted. In that, as counsel for the JSC accepted at the bar
in this Court, it erred. For my part, I am willing to pass over the issue, because on the
view that I take of the matter, even on the JSC’s own showing, the decision of the
majority does not survive scrutiny.

[28] In my view, the matter can be disposed on a far narrower footing than that
foreshadowed in the papers. Accordingly, it hardly seems necessary, for the present,
to define the nature of the power exercised by the Tribunal or the extent to which the
JSC may have been bound by its findings. The JSC appears to accept that whatever
the standard, it was not simply at large to ignore the findings of the Tribunal or to depart
from the conclusion reached by the Tribunal for flimsy, speculative or unsustainable
reasons.

[29] Nor, for the same reason, does it seem necessary to essay a definition of gross
misconduct. Perhaps, Justice Stewart’s famous observation (of hard-core
pornography in Jacobellis v Ohio): ‘I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I
know it when I see it . . .’7, is apposite. Properly construed, the case sought to be
advanced by the JSC is that it was justified in: (i) rejecting the Pretorius SC complaint;

7 Jacobellis v Ohio 378 US 184.

and, (ii) departing from the findings of the Tribunal insofar as the AfriForum complaint
is concerned. The matter thus reduces itself to whether, for the reasons given by the
JSC, it was justified in either ignoring or deviating from the findings and approach of
the Tribunal.

[30] Of the Pretorius SC complaint, the high court held, in agreeing with the JSC,
that:
‘(a) Error of law with regard to the Pretorius Complaint:
It is common cause that the JSE considered the Pretorius Complaint without deciding its
merits. Instead, it dismissed it on the ground of procedural irregularity arising from a failure by
Smuts SC, the member of the [JSC], to disclose that he, not Pretorius SC, was the author of
the complaint. The JSC’s rejection of the complaint was founded on proven perception of bias,
it being a legally recognised objection.
Ms Steinberg SC submitted that this Court may itself dispose of the Pretorius Complaint
without remitting it back to the JSC for consideration in terms of the JSC Act. Mr Maleka SC
held the opposite view which I happen to share. However, more needs to be said about this
issue. A remittal is not the proper remedy, but a re-lodgement of the complaint, if so advised,
is an appropriate remedy under the circumstances. If the so called Pretorius Complaint should
have been lodged as a complaint of Smuts SC, that must have been clearly stated at the
lodgement stage. Mr Pretorius SC disavowed authorship of the complaint when he appeared
before the JCT. In that sense, arguably, the filing of the complaint by Mr Pretorius SC is not
the act that initiated the investigation of the complaint (the trigger) – See Langa v Hlophe at
417. It should have been Mr Smuts SC, but who unfortunately still remains in the dark. Until
such time when he does show up, it cannot be said that the JSC had a duty to consider his
complaint. The decision to exclude ought not to be reduced into the act of avoidance on the
part of the JSC to consider and make findings on the complaint that complied with s 14(1).

[31] As I see it: First, on the facts there can be no reasonable apprehension of bias.
Second, the involvement of Smuts SC is legally irrelevant. Third, it may not have been
open to the JSC to dismiss the complaint without a consideration of the merits.

[32] As to the first: the JSC was wrong in concluding that there was a reasonable
apprehension of bias on the part of the JSC. Smuts SC’s involvement was confined to
one preliminary step in the complaint process. The Pretorius SC complaint had been
referred in terms of s 16(1) of the JSC Act to the Committee to determine whether it

should be investigated by a Tribunal. The Committee, comprising Moseneke DCJ,
Musi JP and Pretorius J, decided in terms of s 16(4) of the JSC Act, to recommend
that the complaint should be investigated by a Tribunal. Smuts SC was involved in the
next step of the process. He was the chair of a 11-member JSC (which included the
DCJ and various JPs) that decided in terms of s 19(1) to accept the recommendation
of the Committee to appoint a Tribunal.

[33] That was sum total of Smuts SC’s involvement. He was not part of the Tribunal
that heard the complaint in terms of s 26(1)(a) and (b). He was also not part of the JSC
that considered the Tribunal’s report and made the final decision in terms of s 20(4)
and (5) of the JSC Act. It might well have been improper for Smuts SC not to disclose
that he had prompted Pretorius SC to lay the complaint, but that did not taint the
hearing of the complaint by the Tribunal or the decision of the JSC. Those who took
those decisions were not biased and could not be reasonably suspected of bias.

[34] As to the second: much like a public prosecution, the public interest in the
effective disciplining of a judge and the maintenance of judicial independence
demands that the focus of the enquiry should be on the merits of the complaint, not its
provenance. In this context, this Court has held that even an ulterior purpose should
not vitiate a prosecution that was well founded on the merits.8 The JSC resorted to
‘accusing the accuser’, instead of considering and engaging with the allegations of
wrongdoing. Courts should be slow to countenance such a strategy. The JSC’s refusal
to determine the merits of the Pretorius SC complaint defeats the very purpose of the
powers given to it to discipline judges and, in so doing, to protect the public’s
perception of the integrity of the judiciary. As this Court held in Nkabinde and Another
v Judicial Service Commission and Others (Nkabinde), where the applicant had
applied to set aside the referral of the complaint based on procedural unfairness,
‘[i]nvalidating the complaint would infringe upon the rights of the complainants . . . and
impact negatively on the image of the judiciary’.9

8 National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma [2009] ZASCA 1;2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA); [2009] All
SA 277 (SCA) para 37.
9 Nkabinde and Another v Judicial Service Commission and Others [2016] ZASCA 12; [2016] 2 All SA
415 (SCA); 2016 (4) SA 1 (SCA) para 87.

[35] As to the third: it is not clear when precisely the JSC took the view that the
Pretorius SC complaint was no longer on the table. The record reveals that until the
split between the majority and minority on the question as to whether or not Judge
Motata’s conduct rose to the level of gross misconduct, no formal decision had been
taken that it be excluded. Only after that split, so it would seem, did the majority resolve
to exclude it. But, that surely must call into question the basis on which the JSC split
and whether it was simply open to the majority to thereafter exclude the complaint.
What is more, by the time the majority resolved to exclude the Pretorius SC complaint,
one Commissioner had already chosen to abstain (in itself rather remarkable).

[36] There may be something to be said for FUL’s submission that the JSC Act does
not permit the JSC to simply refuse to consider the Tribunal’s report on this or any
other score. The JSC had already decided in terms of s 19(1) to request the Chief
Justice to appoint the Tribunal to hear the complaint. It may accordingly not have been
open to the majority to have taken the view that the Pretorius SC complaint ‘should
not have been before the JCT in the first place’. This, because the decision to appoint
the Tribunal stood and, until set aside, had consequences.10 That is why, in Nkabinde,
the appellants had to apply to the high court for an order setting aside the decision of
the JSC to refer the complaint and appoint a Tribunal in terms of s 19(1) of the JSC
Act.

[37] Section 20 of the JSC Act does not appear to contemplate that the JSC may
refuse to consider the Tribunal’s report on the basis that the complaint was invalid. On
the contrary, s 20(2) prescribes that ‘the Commission must consider’ the Tribunal’s
report and the respondent’s submissions and s 20(3) prescribes ‘the Commission must
make a finding as to whether the respondent is suffering from an incapacity; is grossly
incompetent; or is guilty of gross misconduct’.

[38] The question of the initiator of the complaint is thus irrelevant. Section 14(1) of
the JSC Act provides that ‘any person’ may submit a complaint. This means that Smuts
SC could have laid the complaint himself, in his capacity as a member of the
Committee. If it comes to the JSC’s attention that the conduct of a judge might threaten

10 Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others [2004] 3 All SA 1 (SCA).

public confidence in the judiciary, it is arguably incumbent on it to itself initiate and
determine the complaint. After all, the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to protect
the standing of the judiciary in the eyes of the public.

[39] In any event, as this Court has held: ‘the JSC should properly and lawfully deal
with every complaint of gross misconduct by a judge that may threaten the
independence and impartiality of the courts and may justify the removal of that judge
from office. Should it shirk its duty, as it is alleged to have done in this case, it can
have grave repercussions for the administration of justice.11

[40] With respect to the high court, it erred in its finding that the JSC cannot hear
the complaint unless the initiator of the complaint, Smuts SC, ‘shows up’ (whatever
that is intended to mean). Contrary to the finding of the high court, Pretorius SC did
not ‘disavow authorship of the complaint’. He testified in support of the complaint
before the Tribunal and was cross-examined by Judge Motata’s counsel. As this Court
has previously stated: ‘. . . it would indeed be a sorry day for our constitutional
democracy were serious allegations of judicial misconduct to be swept under the
carpet . . . The public interest demands that the allegations be properly investigated .
. .’12 It follows that I cannot agree with the finding of the majority of the JSC that ‘[t]he
Pretorius complaint cannot stand’ or with the high court’s insistence on a ‘re-lodgement
of the complaint’. This means that the JSC’s cross appeal must fail.

[41] In considering the complaints in a compartmentalised fashion, as it did, the JSC
may well have acted arbitrarily and capriciously. It ought to have considered Judge
Motata’s conduct, which had its genesis in the events of 6 January 2007, holistically
and against the conspectus of all of the evidence. It, moreover, approached the
evidence in a piecemeal fashion. In S v Hadebe,13 this Court, cited with approval from
Moshephi and Others v R, which held:
‘The breaking down of a body of evidence into its component parts is obviously a useful aid to
a proper understanding and evaluation of it. But, in doing so, one must guard against a

11 Freedom Under Law v Acting Chairperson: Judicial Service Commission and Others [2011] ZASCA
59; 2011 (3) SA 549 (SCA) (FUL) para 21.
12 Acting Chairperson: Judicial Service Commission and Others v Premier of the Western Cape
Province [2011] ZASCA 53; [2011] 3 All SA 459 (SCA); 2011 (3) SA 583 (SCA) para 25.
13 S v Hadebe 1998 (1) SACR 422 (SCA) at 426E-H.

tendency to focus too intently upon the separate and individual part of what is, after all, a
mosaic of proof. Doubts about one aspect of the evidence led in a trial may arise when that
aspect is viewed in isolation. Those doubts may be set at rest when it is evaluated again
together with all the other available evidence. That is not to say that a broad and indulgent
approach is appropriate when evaluating evidence. Far from it. There is no substitute for a
detailed and critical examination of each and every component in a body of evidence. But,
once that has been done, it is necessary to step back a pace and consider the mosaic as a
whole. If that is not done, one may fail to see the wood for the trees.’14

[42] The majority decision does not say why the factual findings of the Tribunal in
respect of the Afriforum complaint were rejected, including the findings on the
credibility of the witnesses. It also does not engage with the heart of the complaint that
a judge who conducted himself as Judge Motata did betrays the public’s confidence
in the judicial system. The mosaic as a whole detracts from the foundation upon which
the majority decision came to rest. In particular, two examples that go to the heart of
the majority’s finding and are particularly germane, find little support in the evidence –
namely, that Judge Motata’s ‘responsibility was diminished by his proven intoxication
and provocation in the form of the alleged use of the k-word by the owner of the house’.

[43] Insofar as the provocation is concerned, it was asserted in the answering
affidavit filed on behalf of the JSC:
’43.
As such, the evidence on provocation was clear and irrefutable. The provocation
concerned was not ordinary. It was racist, affecting the dignity of Judge Motata. He himself
described it as “extreme” and there is no reason not to consider it as such.
43.1. The Magistrate found that Judge Motata had been provoked. The provocation had
taken place prior to the commencement of the recording.
43.2. The High Court accepted that Judge Motata had been called “a drunk” by Mr Baird,
which could be a reason for the provocation.
43.3
The JCT also appears to accept provocation, although it finds that the source of that
provocation could not be the use of the “k”-word, but could perhaps be the confiscation of his
keys.
43.4. Judge Motata has throughout asserted provocation, from the very moment of the arrest
when he specifically accused Mr Baird on the scene of insulting him.’

14 Moshephi and Others v R (1980 -1984) LAC at 59F-H.

[44] This assertion (and it remains just that an assertion) is inaccurate on several
fronts. The evidence of provocation was neither clear, nor irrefutable. Not having
testified at the criminal trial, provocation was not squarely raised by Judge Motata. The
trial court did not find as a fact that Judge Motata had been provoked. Nor could it,
given that there was no evidence to that effect before the court. The trial court was
willing however to assume in Judge Motata’s favour that:
‘I must add that there appears certainly to be an element of provocation prior to the recordings.
Mr Motata’s answers speak of a level of anger, the tone of his voice as in the audio, which
does not support a scenario of an unprovoked individual.’

[45] That assumption appears to rest on the following that was put on Judge
Motata’s behalf:
‘It was put to Mr Baird that the accused was allegedly annoyed with the interrupting, interfering
and passing of unnecessary comments by Mr Baird himself. It was also put on behalf of the
accused that Mr Motata denied writing down the particulars on the handwritten note which was
received, Exhibit “E”.’
It goes without saying that what was put on Judge Motata’s behalf, which was not
accepted by the witness, did not constitute evidence. Significantly, it was not put to Mr
Baird that he had used the ‘k-word’. It is hard to imagine that, if employed by Mr Baird,
it would not have been put to him.

[46] It is so that Judge Motata had accused Mr Baird of using the k-word, however,
the Tribunal found that he had ultimately conceded that Mr Baird did not use the k-
word. It stated:
’46. While the trial court found that he was provoked, it did not set out the provocative conduct.
However, the Judge’s evidence that he was provoked into making these utterances by being
insulted is not borne out by the record. And the fact that at no stage in the exchange of
“pleadings” in these judicial conduct proceedings did the Judge mention that he was provoked
by the use of the “k-word”.
47. But even if he had been provoked, that does not justify his conduct of manipulating race
to isolate Mr Baird and to get the police on his side. Further, if he was provoked by Mr Baird
he would have, in all likelihood directed his response to Mr Baird and not to the police officers.
In this sense, his defence that he was responding to provocation does not make sense. Even
if he was provoked, perhaps by the fact that his car keys were taken from him, restraint is an
essential trait in the character of a judicial officer. His reaction far exceeded the provocation.’

[47] That finding was based, in part, on the Chairperson of the Tribunal clarifying
with Judge Motata during his cross-examination that at his criminal trial he had made
and then withdrawn the accusation. When the Chairperson sought further clarity,
Judge Motata’s counsel, Mr Skosana SC, said:
‘. . . what angered him, the first thing he did is he grabbed the key. . . That is the provocation
he spoke about.
. . .
But for the purposes of this Tribunal and our submissions, we rely on provocation based on
the taking of the key. I think we should limit ourselves to that, because the others I do not think
I can really support it much, in view of what has taken place in these proceedings.’

[48] The Tribunal found, not only that Mr Baird did not use the k-word, but that Judge
Motata had embarked on ‘a deliberate racially motivated strategy chosen . . . to get
the police officers on his side and to alienate Mr Baird’. The majority decision does not
acknowledge these findings, let alone explain why it rejected them. The high court, in
turn, finds that the majority was correct that the provocation in question was Mr Baird’s
use of the k-word. Like the JSC, it does not explain why it makes this finding in the
face of the evidence, Judge Motata’s abandonment of the accusation and the findings
of the Tribunal. The high court approached the matter thus:
‘The findings of the JSC are that JM was provoked by utterances of the “k-word” emanating
from Mr Baird, and that proven intoxication diminishes guilt from gross to ordinary misconduct.
Ultimately, at issue for decision by this Court is whether it was irregular / irrational for the JSC
to reach the finding that JM is guilty of misconduct. It was not suggested in this Court that the
extremely provocative “k-word” utterances and the admitted fact that JM was as a fact
intoxicated at the time when he made racial utterances as he did on 17 January 2007 are not
valid defences in law. In argument Mr Maleka SC demonstrated the serious manner in which
the “k-word” is viewed by the members of South African society, and expressed by the courts
as in South African Revenue Service v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
. . ..’

[49] Importantly, when testifying before the Tribunal about the use by Mr Baird of
the ‘k-word’, the evidence of Judge Motata ran thus:
‘JUDGE MOTATA: I say I was not prejudiced against say the Afrikaners. I was looking at the
man who was disparaging me or undermining me or criticising me without even looking at the
wall. I said but is it necessary for this man to do that to me?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, what precisely did he do or say?
JUDGE MOTATA: He said this drunken kaffir.
CHAIRPERSON: Did he actually use those words?
JUDGE MOTATA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that actually put to him at the trial?
JUDGE MOTATA: I cannot recall
CHAIRPERSON: And was any finding made to that effect?
JUDGE MOTATA: It does not appear from the record.
CHAIRPERSON: But that certainly is not on the record. Do you agree?
JUDGE MOTATA: But what can I say, my recollection is even one of the state witnesses
repeated that, that he called me a kaffir, that arrest this kaffir, he must land in jail.
CHAIRPERSON: As far as I can recollect, that was denied and it was then subsequent[ly]
withdrawn. Is that correct?’

[50] The claim that ‘Judge Motata has throughout asserted provocation’ is also
inaccurate. It came to be accepted that the allegation had not been raised by Judge
Motata at any earlier stage in response to the AfriForum complaint. In that regard, the
record reflects:
‘CHAIRPERSON: Because you did not testify, but perhaps you might have said so in the
response to the complaint.
JUDGE MOTATA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And that response you will find at page 105. Now, if we go through it, if you
could show us where you have raised the issue of you being provoked.
JUDGE MOTATA: If I am looking at this is that these were submissions made by my legal
representatives.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
JUSTICE DAMBUZA: But there is also your initial response at page 3, which is signed by
yourself.
JUDGE MOTATA: Page 3?
JUSTICE DAMBUZA: Yes, at the beginning, page 3 of that record that you are looking at,
Judge.
JUDGE MOTATA: Yes, okay.
JUSTICE DAMBUZA: That is the first time that you responded to the complaint by AfriForum.
It consists of four pages. It is page 3 to 6, just so that at least we have a complete reference
to your response so that we are not omitting something else that you may have said in this
document.

JUDGE MOTATA: Yes, I see that. Thank you. I do not know . . .
JUSTICE DAMBUZA: Could there be something in there perhaps that points towards your
reference to a provocation of the nature that you alluded to today?
JUDGE MOTATA: This was specifically through the advice I got and we were merely just
responding to what AfriForum said, because when we come to page 5, 5.1, I do say “I dispute
the allegation that I am guilty of any racist conduct and confirm that whenever I am called upon
to perform my duties as a Judge, I do so in the interest of all communities without prejudice or
favour or any racial grouping”.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, is that your response?
JUDGE MOTATA: Yes.’

[51] One scours the record, but one does so in vain, for any earlier reference to the
use of the ‘k word’. The first allusion to provocation in that form was before the Tribunal
some 11 years after the incident. It had not been raised at any prior stage before the
JSC in response to the complaint. Nor, had it been raised in the course of the criminal
trial. And, once raised, it had almost immediately thereafter been disavowed by Judge
Motata’s counsel, Mr Skosana. This lends support to the finding of the Tribunal that
provocation in the form of the use of the k word was an afterthought. And, yet it formed
an important edifice upon which the majority decision of the JSC came to rest. In that
the JSC was not only far too receptive to Judge Motata’s assertion, but impermissibly
made far more of it than a proper analysis of the evidence permits.

[52] The Tribunal found that Judge Motata was intoxicated at the time of the
incident. It recorded that even if he had believed at the time of the incident that he was
not intoxicated, by the time he went to trial (and subsequently appeared before the
Tribunal), he would have considered the evidence, including the visual and audio
recordings made at the time of the incident, and realised that ‘a denial of intoxication
was against all [the] prevailing evidence [and] could not be true’.

[53] The Tribunal was thus satisfied that Judge Motata had conducted a defence
both at his trial and before the Tribunal that he knew to be untrue and ‘lacked integrity’.
The majority does not engage with Judge Motata’s dishonesty regarding his
intoxication at all. It merely regards his ‘proven intoxication’ as a mitigating factor.
There appear to be deep inconsistencies in the JSC’s approach to the issue of Judge

Motata’s intoxication. The majority uses his ‘proven intoxication’ as a factor that
somehow reduces his moral blameworthiness. In other words, the majority accepted
that despite his denial, he was indeed intoxicated. They ignore that this necessarily
implies that he advanced a dishonest defence in court and lied before the Tribunal.

[54] During the course of the trial, Judge Motata’s then counsel, Mr Dorfling SC, put
to Mr Baird that he ‘will deny being under the influence at the time of driving his motor
car’. In the majority report (upon which the majority decision appears to rest), it is
stated:
’29.
Purely for illustrative purposes and as our own theoretical postulation, we present the
following words for consideration. The variations and meanings of the statement could
theoretically have been:
29.1. “The accused will deny being drunk at the time of driving his car and at the time when
the videos of him were taken”; or
29.2. “The accused will deny being drunk at the time of driving his car . . . but will admit being
drunk at the subsequent stage when the videos were taken”.
30.
If the first meaning is imputed, he should be impeached.’

[55] The majority accepted that the JSC could not revisit the criminal conviction and
that it was bound by the findings of the trial court. In convicting Judge Motata of what
is more colloquially referred to as drunken driving, the trial court found that he was
‘under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time that [he] drove [the] vehicle when
it crashed into the wall of the property belonging to Richard Baird’. That admits of no
doubt. What is more, such a finding had to have been made to support a conviction
on that charge. So understood, the semantic debate undertaken by the majority simply
does not arise.

[56] In support of the conclusion that Judge Motata was indeed guilty, the trial court
noted:
‘My assessment of the audio recording is, having found them to be admissible and in
evaluating same I am able to state the following, and conclude that there indeed were racial
slurs, derogatory language, the reference to “F you” on at least ten occasions is clear from the
audio recordings. That the speech of the accused was drawn out and laboured and he
stumbled over his words.

The fact that his word construction was inadequate is also set out in the transcript and can be
heard on the audio. There is also proof of drawing out of certain words in a very different
fashion from a normal person. There are occasions where indeed his sentence construction
was inadequate. Some of the answers that he gave, to my mind, do not make sense on the
scene.
There are occasions when the voice tone and the volume of the accused changes to loud
shouting, then toning down. There is confirmation that the accused alighted from his vehicle
as can be seen from the transcript and heard on the audio.
Clearly indeed it is evident from the audio recordings that the tone of certain individuals
speaking around the accused was certainly of trying to get the accused to cooperate. This is
in contrast with the tone, the volume of the manner in which Mr Motata’s voice appears on the
audio recordings that were downloaded from the cellphone to the computer.
If you look at Exhibit “B” photo 3, it is clear, my observation is of a man who appears to be
asleep at the wheel. Head sagging forward, oblivious to his surroundings. Photo 4 is clearly
Mr Motata, not Mr Motata that I have seen in this court no less than 25 times.’

[57] Given the elements of the charge, for any denial advanced on behalf of Judge
Motata to have been meaningful and not illusory, it had to relate to the time when he
crashed into Mr Baird’s wall. The charge had nothing to do with his state of inebriety
after the collision, when the ‘videos were being taken of him’. The distinction sought
to be drawn between the two aforementioned postulations thus appears artificial and
contrived.

[58] The majority report recorded:
‘Crucially, nobody seems to have thought of calling Adv Dorfling to clear up the matter . . . It
would have been the easiest thing for the Johannesburg Bar Council to conduct its own
investigation of the matter and, if necessary to take the necessary action. It would seem that
the basic premise and assumption from which he departed was simply that: Judge Motata was
prima facie guilty and Adv Dorfling was prima facie innocent and even incapable of a bad
formulation of a question. This approach cannot be willy nilly endorsed by the JSC. It is plainly
wrong and irrational. There is no logical basis for counsel to enjoy the presumption of honesty
and/or infallibility and a judge be presumed to be dishonest and/or fallible.
. . .
To add insult to injury, Judge Motata is being crucified, terminally so, for words which were
uttered not by him but by counsel, who was never called to explain his choice of words.’

[59] It is important to point out that it was not open to the evidence leader before the
Tribunal to have called Mr Dorfling to testify. Only Judge Motata could have done so.
What the majority appear to lose from sight is that such evidence would be evidence
of privileged communications between an accused person and his counsel. The
privilege is that of the accused, not that of counsel, and in the normal course would be
inadmissible against an accused. Although the privilege can be waived either
expressly or impliedly by the accused (and there is no suggestion of that having
happened here), it is in general undesirable that counsel should be compelled to give
evidence against his client.15

[60] There is yet a further reason why the approach of the majority is untenable.
Under cross-examination before the Tribunal and after Judge Motata had repeated
that he was not drunk at the time he crashed into Mr Baird’s wall, he admitted that
‘counsel was not exceeding or misrepresenting my instruction to any appreciable or
significant extent’. Yet the majority found that the mistake was that of his advocate and
sought to excuse Judge Motata on this basis.

[61] The majority also took the view that:
‘Moreover, he was entitled, like any other accused person and in terms of section 35 of the
Constitution, not to take the stand. In so doing, both he and the court lost a golden opportunity
to put the matter of his version beyond any doubt and guesswork. This is unfortunate but it
cannot be artificially cured by skewing the meaning of the suggestion posed by counsel
(perhaps inelegantly rather than dishonestly) to suit a particular result.’

[62] Once again, so it seems to me, that is to misconstrue the position. Judge Motata
did not advance a defence to speak of at his criminal trial. Whilst he had a right to
silence, which he sought to exercise at his criminal trial, that may not have been
without its consequence. Somewhat surprisingly he did not testify. When he made that
choice there was a body of evidence that already operated against him, which certainly
called for an answer. In respect of the first charge a prima facie case had been
established by the prosecution. That should have been patent to him when his
application for a discharge on that charge had been refused at the end of the State

15 S v Boesman and Others 1990 (2) SACR 389 (E).

case. Yet he countered it with nothing, preferring instead to shun the witness stand.
His choice to remain silent in the face of the evidence implicating him in criminal
conduct is suggestive of the fact that he had no answer to it. For, if the evidence
implicating him was capable of being neutralised by an honest rebuttal, it surely would
have been.16 If there was an explanation consistent with his innocence it should have
been proferred. For him not to have risen to the challenge and remained silent in the
face of the evidence was nothing short of damning.17

[63] I do not believe that Judge Motata, who had legal advice throughout,
misapprehended any of the issues before the trial court or Tribunal. In the
circumstances, it is passing strange to suggest, as the majority does, that ‘the court
lost a golden opportunity to put the matter beyond any doubt and guesswork’. It was
not for the trial court to ferret out the evidence. There is no suggestion that Judge
Motata’s right to be heard had been infringed. A litigant has a choice to prove a
contested fact. Common sense suggests that a litigant would produce the most
persuasive evidence possible. In this instance that would have been the evidence of
Judge Motata himself. Even though the evidence was peculiarly within his knowledge,
he chose not to place it before the court. That can hardly redound to the discredit of
the court. The trial court was under no misapprehension. It recorded: ‘It was put to Mr
Baird that he will deny being drunk or under the influence at the time of driving his car’.

[64] The majority approached the enquiry thus:
‘The only question to be answered is accordingly whether there is any legally acceptable basis
upon which the explanation tendered by Judge Motata can be outrightly rejected as false or
improbable by the JSC.’
But, by then his version, such as it was, had already been rejected by the trial court.
The majority went on to assess the matter solely from Judge Motata’s perspective. For
example, in regard to its finding of ‘diminished responsibility due to intoxication’, the
majority says that ‘[t]he issue becomes whether [Judge Motata] subjectively believed
himself to be drunk’, not what the public would make of his conduct in driving drunk
and then denying he was drunk. Ironically, diminished responsibility was not even

16 Dos Santos and Another v The State [2010] ZASCA 73; 2010 (2) SACR 382 (SCA); [2010] 4 All SA
132 (SCA) para 35.
17 S v Monyane 2008 (1) SACR 543 (SCA) para 19 and the cases there cited.

raised or relied upon by Judge Motata himself. Quite the contrary, he insisted
throughout that he was not drunk.

[65] Neither the Tribunal, nor the JSC, commenced with a clean slate. Each was
bound by the findings and conclusions reached by the trial court, which, had been
reached employing the higher ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ yardstick. The trial court
recorded:
‘Mr Baird describes the language of the accused . . . to be very “colourful”. There were racial
slurs and derogatory language, his word construction way in adequate. They were very
illogical arguments. He had a glazed look on his face. He had a look in his eyes that they were
swimming. He smelled of alcohol. He could not stand up without holding onto his car.
He was holding on, uncertain, trying to grab onto steadiness as if a blind person would want
to search in front of him. In my opinion, according to Mr Baird, he was drunk. He just fell over,
caught the car, I do not think his knees touched the ground then. There was a time when he
got out of the car, he was unstable and fell over. He caught himself on the car.’

[66] The trial court thereafter concluded:
‘What is also of importance to me in this matter is the accident, which remains a mystery. It is
a single car accident . . . in the dead of the night. The question remains, why reverse over a
pavement, right through a garden wall when there are driveways on that road into which you
could reverse.
. . .
I am satisfied that Mr Motata’s proven speech impairment, physical impairment, mental
impairment and general conduct shortly after the accident were such coupled with the spelling
mistakes and inaccuracies in the handwritten note, that the only reasonable inference is that
he was indeed under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time that he drove the vehicle
and collided into the wall.’

[67] Those findings by the trial court admit of no doubt and appear to call the lie to
Judge Motata’s assertion. When his denial that he was drunk is juxtaposed against
the body of evidence relied upon by the trial court, it can hardly survive scrutiny.
Following his conviction, and even after more than sufficient opportunity for reflection,
he persisted in his version, initially before the JCC and thereafter the Tribunal and
JSC, that he had only drunk two glasses of wine. The Tribunal found:

‘Before instructing counsel, the Judge must have considered inter alia, the evidence of not
only Mr Baird but the evidence of both the visual and audio recordings made at the locality at
the time of the incident. No doubt, the Judge together with his legal representatives must have
considered the evidence of witnesses other than Mr Baird as well. All the admissible evidence
which would be placed before the court which the Judge had access to before he pleaded,
must have made it clear that a denial of intoxication was against all prevailing evidence and
could not be true. The response by the Judge that he had no control over questions put by his
counsel to state witnesses cannot be sustained. That being so, the conclusion to be drawn is
that the Judge knowingly conducted a defence which he knew lacked integrity.’

[68] When the findings of the Tribunal are read together with those of the trial court,
there could be no room for the finding that Judge Motata subjectively believed himself
not to be drunk. In any event, the JSC did not pause to consider why the intoxication
was a relevant consideration or seek to demonstrate how Judge Motata’s breach of
the standards of judicial conduct was rendered any less egregious by his intoxication.

[69] There is a further disquieting feature about the conduct of Judge Motata’s
defence in the criminal trial. Mr Baird became the main focus of Judge Motata’s attack.
He was cross-examined over a number of days. In heads of argument filed on behalf
of Judge Motata in the trial court, Mr Baird was described as ‘biased, unreliable,
dishonest and who has concocted evidence has contradicted himself and above all is
a racist’. Those were allegations of a most serious kind. They ought not to have been
made in the absence of a proper factual foundation having been laid for them. The
long and short of it is that Mr Baird was a prosecution witness, with no axe to grind.

[70] As the trial court noted, with reference to Mr Baird, ‘my observation speak[s] to
an individual being called from his house in the dead of the night and finding a vehicle
crashed into . . . property’. To label someone a ‘racist’, absent a true factual foundation
is most unfortunate. To suggest of a witness that he is ‘dishonest’ or ‘concocted
evidence’, is to suggest that such witness has made himself guilty of a deliberate
falsehood. It excludes room for any honest mistake on the part of the witness. Those
are not allegations to be lightly made and certainly not in circumstances where no
evidence has been adduced by the defence to gainsay the testimony of the witness.

[71] The trial court formed a favourable impression of Mr Baird. It said:
‘I hold the view that Mr Baird could have packed up more, could have added more, could have
recorded more and he had the opportunity to do so if he wanted to doctor he could certainly
omit some of the thing[s] [that] seems to favour Mr Motata. But he agreed with Mr Dorfling on
more than occasion with issues that were favourable to Mr Motata’.

[72] Mr Baird testified that Judge Motata had written his particulars on a piece of
paper, which contained incorrect spelling, repetition and was very difficult to read. The
trial court recorded:
‘The note was handed in as Exhibit “E” and contained . . . various spelling and inaccuracies
which are set out hereunder. The contents of the note were as follows: “The honourable mister
mister justice NJ Motata Transvall Provinicial division.” Beneath that “TPD” plus something
that was not clear and telephone numbers: 012 33 illegible digit 75 and something that could
either be 54 or 81. Mr Baird was adamant that the accused wrote his details on the piece of
paper.’

[73] The trial court gave short shrift to the apparent attempt by Judge Motata to
dispute that it was his handwriting on the piece of paper. It dealt with it in these terms:
‘I accept the evidence of Mr Baird together with everything else I have said, including the fact
that the accused has remained silent. I must therefore accept the handwritten note and except
that Mr Baird’s testimony is that Mr Motata wrote on that note in that fashion, where some of
the letters do not spell out words correctly and numbers are written incorrectly. I accept that
Mr Motata wrote on that handwritten note and gave same to Mr Baird. I have also the portions
of the evidence of Mr Madibo and Ms Mashilela which corroborate Mr Baird’s testimony.’

[74] Mr Baird’s evidence and Judge Motata’s denial that he was drunk were mutually
incompatible. Both could not have been true. Once the trial court accepted Mr Baird’s
evidence, it inexorably followed that Judge Motata’s denial was false. In that sense,
the handwritten note was no neutral piece of evidence. It spoke to Judge Motata’s
inebriety at the scene and lent support to Mr Baird’s version. The denial by Judge
Motata that it was his handwriting on the note is telling. It was consistent with his false
denial that he was drunk. The JSC did not consider at all whether the advancing of a
false defence would have a deleterious effect on the public perception of Judge
Motata’s ability to act with honesty and propriety.

[75] To be sure, it is not being postulated that the JSC was obliged to slavishly
endorse the findings of the Tribunal. Far from it. Even on the acceptance that the
Tribunal’s findings are not binding on the JSC, nor is the conclusion that the Tribunal
drew from those findings, it still remained for the JSC, at the very least, to enquire into
whether or not the Tribunal had addressed the issues fully and fairly and directed its
mind to the right questions in reaching the conclusion that Judge Motata should be
removed from office. One finds no evidence of it having done so. The report of the
Tribunal is clear and comprehensive. There is no reason to doubt the fairness of the
procedure adopted. There is no complaint of a lack of balance in the approach of the
Tribunal or suggestion that Judge Motata did not receive a proper hearing before it.
That notwithstanding, the JSC disregarded the factual findings of the Tribunal, without
explaining why it did so. It ignored that the Tribunal was the body that had the
advantage of hearing the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses.

[76] AfriForum complained that ‘[a] judge should be able act in the interest of all
communities without any prejudice. Any judge who makes himself guilty of racist
conduct. . . therefore has no place on the judge’s bench. Such a judge betrays the
public’s confidence in the judicial system’. The Tribunal asked rhetorically’ ‘. . . what
would be the attitude of an ordinary person, let alone a person of Afrikaner descent, if
she/he is to be tried before Judge Motata?’ It said:
‘Our Constitution protects South African citizens against racism and guarantees their right to
dignity. Our judges are custodians of these rights. Post-apartheid, our courts have consistently
decried persistent racist conduct and affirmed the right of all South African citizens to dignity.
Racist conduct on the part of a judge therefore strikes at the heart of judicial integrity and
impartiality, particularly against the background of South Africa’s apartheid history.
Accordingly, racist conduct on the part of a judge constitutes gross misconduct.’

[77] The Tribunal found, inter alia, that:
‘Judge Motata’s conduct at the scene of his motor accident and the remarks he made were
racist and thus impinge on and are prejudicial to the impartiality and dignity of the courts’; ‘the
lack of integrity in the manner which Judge Motata allowed his defence to be conducted at his
trial . . . is incompatible with or unbecoming of the holding of judicial office . . . [T]o permit
Judge Motata to remain a judicial officer would negatively affect the public’s confidence of the
courts’.

[78] The majority report, on the other hand, ignored entirely the impact of the Judge
Motata’s racist comments on the public’s confidence in the judiciary. It recorded: ‘At
the JSC meeting of June 2018, it was overwhelmingly agreed and recorded that the
ground of impeachment based on racial slurs could not be sustained and must fall
away’. Why that was so, is not explained. Nor, as I shall demonstrate, is that approach
supportable. ‘Racial slurs’ and ‘racially loaded utterances’ are the epithets preferred
by the majority. Even on the acceptance of those euphemisms, the majority was still
impelled to the conclusion that the utterances were unbecoming of a Judge. The point
ignored is that the utterances, which evidence an apparent bias, would result in Judge
Motata being substantially disabled from performing his judicial function, because on
any reckoning racist utterances are fundamentally irreconcilable with the standards
expected of a judicial officer.

[79] In arriving at a contrary conclusion to the Tribunal, the JSC largely overlooked
a great many important findings of fact. As I have been at pains to show, the reliance
sought to be placed by the majority decision on the provocation and intoxication is not
supported by the evidence. Once it is accepted that those factors are illusory, rather
than real and, do not tip the scales in Judge Motata’s favour, then the JSC accepts
(as it was put in its answering affidavit) that:
‘106.
Ad paragraph 11
106.1 This allegation is denied. The decision of the JSC of 10 October 2019 clearly applies
the standard for gross misconduct. Moreover, the issue of whether or not racism is serious
misconduct is clear. Racism is a breach of section 9 of the Constitution, which prohibits
discrimination based on race. Racism is also inconsistent with the Judicial Code of Conduct.
Racism of a Judge additionally breaches the principle of judicial independence because it
undermines public confidence in the Judiciary.
106.2 These instruments clearly articulate the standard of gross misconduct as applicable to
racism conduct of a Judge. It is senseless for the JSC, each time it adjudicates a case of
misconduct, to articulate a fresh standard applicable to those facts.
106.3 Nevertheless, as stated above in this particular instance the JSC clearly found Judge
Motata’s conduct to be racially loaded, but it lacked the element of “gross” because of two
mitigatory factors: intoxication and provocation. Absent those factors, it is clear that the racist
utterances by Judge Motata would have been considered to be gross.’

[80] Like the JSC, the high court failed to consider the impact of Judge Motata’s
conduct on the public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the
judiciary. Both failed to consider the impact on the public of him remaining ‘Judge
Motata’ and continuing to receive the benefits of his pension as a judge, after he was
found to have made racist statements and thereafter conducted a dishonest defence
in his criminal trial and before the Tribunal. That he had retired, as the majority and
the high court seemed willing to emphasise, was thus irrelevant.

[81] The JSC has been charged by the Constitution and the JSC Act to inter alia
protect the integrity of the judicial system. In discharging that function, it had to be
sensitive to the expectations of a reasonably well-informed and dispassionate public
that holders of judicial office would at all times remain worthy of trust, confidence and
respect.18 The court below merely found that the JSC is not bound by the
recommendation of the Tribunal. That goes without saying. However, the JSC is
required by s 20(1) to (3) of the JSC Act to ‘consider’ the Tribunal’s report at a meeting,
and thereafter make a finding whether the judge suffers from an incapacity, is grossly
incompetent or committed gross misconduct. The JSC’s decision was anchored in the
factual findings of Judge Motata’s alleged provocation by the use of the k-word and
his diminished incapacity due to intoxication. It was incumbent on the high court to
determine whether the JSC’s decision in this regard was supported by the facts,
particularly since the JSC did not accept the Tribunal’s factual findings. The high court
should have enquired whether the JSC was entitled to simply disregard the Tribunal’s
factual findings in the manner that it did. It did not do so. Had the high court undertaken
that task, the conclusion would perhaps have been inevitable that no justifiable warrant
existed for the JSC to have rejected the Tribunal’s findings.

[82] It was argued on behalf of the JSC that were we to reach this conclusion, then
the matter should be remitted to the JSC for it to consider afresh the Tribunal’s finding.
It is so that if a court sets aside a decision, it will ordinarily remit the matter to the
decision-maker for reconsideration, with or without a direction. There are instances
though where a court will substitute the decision with its own. This seems to be such
an instance.

18 Moreau-Berube fn 1 above at 291.

[83] FUL had initially sought a remittal. However, this was plainly as an alternative
to the main relief of substitution. It had always been FUL’s case that substitution was
the appropriate remedy. It asserted in its founding affidavit:
‘170.
Justice and equity demand that the Decision should not be remitted to the JSC for
reconsideration. If the matter were referred back to the JSC, then the end-result would be a
foregone conclusion. The facts are common cause. All the materials are before this Court and
they lead to only one conclusion consistent with the constitutional mandate. Judge Motata’s
conduct clearly amounts to gross misconduct and incapacity. This court is in as good a position
to make the decision as the JSC, given that all the material is before it, it is not required to
make findings of fact afresh, the decision involves the application of legal standards which the
Constitutional Court has ruled objective in character, and the subject-matter of these
proceedings is in the heartland of this Court’s remit, given that it involves the constitutional
role of the judiciary and judicial standards of conduct.
171.
The Decision is, at its heart, a disciplinary decision and is thus judicial in nature. In this
respect, therefore, the court is as well qualified as the JSC to make a final determination as to
whether Judge Motata’s conduct constitutes gross misconduct.’

[84] In response, in resisting an order of substitution, Mr Chiloane stated on behalf
of the JSC:
‘189
Ad paragraphs 168 to 173
189.1 These allegations are denied. It is not accurate that if the matter is referred to the JSC
the “end result would be a foregone conclusion”. Nor is it clear that the facts are common
cause. It is denied that it is clear that the conduct of Judge Motata amounts to gross
misconduct.
189.2 One of the key considerations in the remittal would be whether or not the complaint of
Adv Pretorius SC should be taken into account. If taken into account, the question is whether
or not the defence of Judge Motata, namely, that he did not instruct his counsel to ask the
specific question that he did but merely told him that [h]is own subjective belief was that he
was not at the time drunk. It is speculative at this stage to talk of how the JSC would approach
the matter.
189.3 It is not obvious whether or not questions of intoxication and provocation should play
any role in the assessment of the degree of seriousness of the misconduct. These are
questions to be resolved, ultimately by the JSC itself.
. . .
189.6 The complaint that it is taken a long time to resolve the matter is neither here nor there.
One cannot subvert principle for expediency. If the Court directs the JSC to deal with the

matter expeditiously, there is no reason at this stage to believe that such direction will not be
complied with. Therefore, it is submitted that the correct outcome will be the remittal of the
matter to the JSC.’

[85] One may have been entitled to conclude that no proper evidentiary basis had
been laid by the JSC for a remittal. However, on the acceptance once again in the
JSC’s favour that what Mr Chiloane had to say constituted admissible evidence and
did indeed have some evidential weight, this is not quintessentially the kind of matter
where a court need necessarily defer to the original decision-maker. Quite the
contrary. This is very much in the nature of a value judgment to be made in the light
of all of the relevant considerations.19 In any event, none of the considerations
advanced by the JSC in support of a remittal for the purposes of a reconsideration can
still hold water. The facts admit of no doubt. Nor, is the acceptance of the Pretorius
SC complaint still open to discussion. Judge Motata’s defence, his instructions to his
counsel, as well as his intoxication and alleged provocation have been subjected to
careful consideration and scrutiny. His version, in respect of each (to the extent that it
can be said that he had advanced one) has been found to be wanting. It can thus
hardly be open to the JSC to revisit these matters or, more importantly, in doing so, to
simply disregard our findings, by which, I daresay, it would be bound. Remittal, in the
circumstances, would, for all intents and purposes, amount to an insistence of form
above substance.

[86] In Trencon, the Constitutional Court summarised the factors a court should
consider when determining whether an order of substitution is appropriate, namely: (i)
whether the court is as well qualified to decide the issue as was the original
administrator; (ii) whether the end result is a foregone conclusion; (iii) where there has
been a delay in the finalisation of the matter, whether further delay of the matter would
be unjustifiable; and, (iv) whether the original decision-maker has demonstrated bias
or incompetence.20 The Constitutional Court further held that the first two factors
should be considered first and cumulatively, and thereafter the other factors should be
considered. The ultimate consideration is whether substitution is just and equitable.

19 Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Nyhonyha [2023] ZASCA 69 paras 16 – 23.
20 Trencon Construction (Pty) Limited v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited and
Another [2015] ZACC 22; 2015 (5) SA 245 (CC); 2015 (10) BCLR 1199 (CC) para 47.

[87] There are instances where ‘a single, highly prejudicial or offensive, comment
might be sufficiently grave to seriously undermine public confidence in a judge to the
extent that removal is the only outcome’.21 Here, there are several demonstrations by
Judge Motata of a serious lack of judgment. His actions and expressions trigger
concerns about the judicial function itself. There appears to be nothing to suggest that
he had even recognised that he had made himself guilty of serious misconduct. Such
lack of awareness, in and of itself, seems to manifest an underlying defect in character.

[88] We have the benefit of the judgment of the trial court, the appeal court, as also,
the record of the proceedings and the report of the Tribunal. The Tribunal conducted
a full enquiry into the complaints. There has been no complaint from anyone about
any aspect of that enquiry. We also have the reports of the majority decision as well
as the majority, minority and concurring opinions. We are accordingly as well placed
as the JSC.

[89] It was of course open to Judge Motata to offer, at any time, an apology for his
conduct. But, he did not. Whether an apology would have been sufficient to restore
public confidence need not detain us, because none was proffered by him. It appears
that he failed even after finalisation of the criminal trial to appreciate that he had
engaged in misconduct of a most serious kind. This reveals both his lack of insight
and his lack of appreciation for his misconduct on the public confidence in the judiciary.

[90] Judge Motata’s conduct was egregious, particularly when one has regard to the
cumulative consequence of both the AfriForum and Pretorius SC complaints. His
behaviour at the scene of the incident was characterised by racism, sexism and
vulgarity. The public watched him conduct a dishonest defence during his trial and on
appeal. They watched him dishonestly accuse Mr Baird of using the k-word, only to
thereafter withdraw the accusation. They watched him lie under oath to the Tribunal
about his level of intoxication, as the video of him slurring his words and stumbling
went viral. His conduct is inimical to his office. For as long as he is entitled to be called
‘Judge Motata’, the judiciary continues to be stained in the eyes of the public.

21 Canadian Judicial Council Inquiry into the conduct of The Honourable Robin Camp. Report to the
Minister of Justice, dated 8 March 2017 para 49.

[91] The incident occurred on 6 January 2007. Sixteen years have since passed. It
has taken nearly thirteen years for the JSC to make a final decision. Undoubtedly,
some of the delays were on account of Judge Motata’s high court challenges and
points in limine before the Tribunal. Should this Court remit the matter to the JSC,
there is every likelihood that any fresh decision by it will be reviewed, and the matter
will again wind its long, slow journey through the courts. Further delay does not serve
the interests of justice.

[92] The majority’s approach disregarded the purpose for which it was exercising its
disciplinary powers. It sought to test whether there was a basis to reject Judge
Motata’s version, which, as I have endeavoured to demonstrate, it could safely have
done. It found, in effect, that it could not conclude that he was lying because he
subjectively believed what he said, notwithstanding the body of cogent and compelling
evidence that operated against him. In so doing, the majority blurred the distinction
between the protection of the institution in the interests of the public at large and the
protection of the personal interests of the judge.

[93] The majority decision also shows no regard whatever for the damning factual
findings of the trial court and the Tribunal. The AfriForum complaint is disposed of on
the basis of the filmiest of reasoning. The refusal to consider the merits of the Pretorius
SC complaint is a striking example of the JSC ‘shirk[ing] its duty’ which ‘can have grave
repercussions for the administration of justice’.22 The JSC thus manifestly ‘blurred the
distinction’ between the ‘protection of the institution in the interests of the public at
large’ and the ‘protection of the personal interests of the judge’.

[94] ‘Public confidence in and respect for the judiciary are essential to an effective
judicial system and, ultimately, to democracy and founded on the rule of law’.23 A fair
minded and dispassionate observer is bound to conclude that Judge Motata cannot
properly discharge his functions. The conduct that I have been at pains to describe is
of such gravity as to warrant a finding that Judge Motata be removed from office. There
is no alternative measure to removal that would be sufficient to restore public
confidence in the judiciary. This means that the conclusion reached by the JSC to

22 FUL fn 11 above para 21.
23 Moreau-Berube fn 1 above at 286.

‘reject the Tribunal’s recommendation’ and that ‘Judge Motata’s conduct did not
constitute gross misconduct’, falls to be rejected. Consequently, the recommendation
by the Tribunal that the ‘provisions of section 177(1)(a) of the Constitution be invoked’,
must stand. Accordingly, the matter will be remitted to the JSC. It is not being remitted,
however, for the JSC to consider the report of the Tribunal in terms of s 20(1) or to
make a finding under s 20(3), but for it to be dealt with in terms of s 20(4) of the JSC
Act.24

[95] In the result:
The appeal is upheld and the cross appeal is dismissed, in each instance with
costs, including those of two counsel.
The order of the court below is set aside and substituted by:
‘1. The application succeeds with costs, including those of two counsel.
2. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for it to be dealt with in terms of
section 20(4) of the Judicial Service Commission Act 9 of 1994.’

________________
VM PONNAN
JUDGE OF APPEAL

Mocumie JA and Masipa AJA (dissenting):

[96] We have read the main judgment penned by Ponnan JA. We agree with his
reasoning, and therefore, accept the summary of the facts, which we will adopt to the
extent that is relevant for the conclusion that we reach hereafter. However, regrettably,
we cannot agree with the order that the majority judgment proposes.

24 Section 20(4) provides:
‘If the Commission finds that the respondent is suffering from an incapacity, is grossly incompetent or
is guilty of gross misconduct, the Commission must submit that finding, together with the reasons
therefor and a copy of the report, including any relevant material, of the Tribunal, to the Speaker of the
National Assembly’.

[97] In the overall, we concur with the majority judgment that the decision of the JSC
should be set aside, for the reasons given. Similarly, the JSC itself, in its Answering
Affidavit, has expressed agreement with this proposition, albeit as an alternative
course of action contingent upon this Court’s determination. FUL too, aligns with this
proposition, as evidenced by the relief sought in the Notice of Motion (para 3), their
Heads of Argument, and their submissions presented before this Court.25 Thus, we
propose to remit the matter to the JSC for a reconsideration of its own decision, guided
by the principles articulated in the whole of this judgment (both the majority and the
minority judgment).

[98] The JSC is the sole authority empowered to make a finding of gross misconduct
against a judge in terms of s 177(1)(a) of the Constitution. The JSC was established
in terms of s 178 of the Constitution and consists of 23 members comprising of diverse
individuals from the legal profession; including judges (most senior in the judiciary),
advocates, attorneys, and law professors. Pursuant to s 178(5) of the Constitution,
only the JSC is entitled to advise the national government on any matters relating to
the judiciary.

[99] The JSC Act was promulgated ‘to regulate matters incidental to the
establishment of the Judicial Service Commission by the Constitution; to establish the
Judicial Conduct Committee to receive and deal with complaints about judges; to
provide for a Code of Judicial Conduct which serves as the prevailing standard of
judicial conduct which judges must adhere to; to provide for the establishment and
maintenance of a register of judges' registrable interests; to provide for procedures for
dealing with complaints about judges; to provide for the establishment of Judicial
Conduct Tribunals to inquire into and report on allegations of incapacity, gross
incompetence or gross misconduct against judges; and to provide for matters
connected therewith’.26

25 Para 3 of the Notice of Motion reads:
‘3 Substituting the Decision with a finding that the second respondent is guilty of gross misconduct
and/or suffers from an incapacity as contemplated in section 177 (1)(a) of the Constitution; alternatively,
remitting the matter to the first respondent to be decided afresh within 20 days of the date of the order;
considering the findings of this Honourable Court;’ (Emphasis added.)
26 Long title of the Judicial Service Commission Act (9 of 1994) after amendment by the Judicial Service
Commission Amendment Act (20 of 2008).

[100] The majority judgment highlights several concerning features, including how
the regional court’s evidence (which the JCT took into account as it ought to) was
treated by the JSC, which have not been adequately addressed at any stage. It also
raised a concern on how ‘the composition of the JSC did not remain constant when
the matter was discussed. [But] despite several changes in its composition as the
matter progressed, the JSC simply picked-up its deliberations whence previously left
off.’ This must have left doubt in the minds of many (including those aggrieved) as to
what drove the JSC to decide as it did. These and other disquieting features
highlighted in the majority judgment are of serious concern not only for this specific
matter, but also for the entire judiciary and the public at large which should be
addressed by the JSC appropriately.

[101] This case represents a test case for the JSC and the judiciary regarding the
impeachment of judge. It focuses on the two complaints lodged by AFRI Forum and
Pretorius SC and inevitably the interpretation of s 20 of the JSC Act. We interpose to
mention that Ms Steinberg, counsel for FUL, is also a Commissioner of the JSC. As
such, it is reasonable to expect that she be aware that the current JSC, with the
advantage of many new members, including her, will fulfil its responsibility as directed
by the JSC Act as this Court will direct. Thus, the necessity to remit the matter to the
JSC to allow it to put its house in order, is not only in the public interest, but it is also
to ensure that that the JSC fulfils its role in continuously monitoring the conduct of
judges under its purview without fear, favour or prejudice. Historically, the judges of
this country have behaved and conducted themselves with fortified behaviour, this
incident being an exception to the norm. It would be unjust for the public and the
society at large to tarnish the entire judiciary based on a single incident.

[102] The high court correctly found that the appeal revolves around the interpretation
of s 20 of the JSC Act. In interpreting this provision, the seminal judgment of Jaga v
Dönges27, remains pivotal in our minds where this Court states:

27 Jaga v Donges and Another NO and Another; Bhana v Donges NO and Another 1950 (4) SA 653
(A).

‘Certainly, no less important than the oft repeated statement that the words and expressions
used in a statute must be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning is the statement that
they must be interpreted in the light of their context. But it may be useful to stress two points
in relation to the application of this principle. The first is that ‘the context’, as here used, is not
limited to the language of the rest of the statute regarded as throwing light of a dictionary kind
on the part to be interpreted. Often of more importance is the matter of the statute, its apparent
cope and purpose, and, within limits, its background.’(Emphasis added.)28

[103] The Constitutional Court states the principle as follows:
‘What this Court said in Cool Ideas in the context of statutory interpretation is
particularly apposite. It said:
“A fundamental tenet of statutory interpretation is that the words in a statute must be
given their ordinary grammatical meaning, unless to do so would result in an absurdity.
There are three important interrelated riders to this general principle, namely:
(a) that statutory provisions should always be interpreted purposively;
(b) the relevant statutory provision must be properly contextualised; and
(c) all statutes must be construed consistently with the Constitution, that is, where
reasonably possible, legislative provisions ought to be interpreted to preserve their
constitutional validity. This proviso to the general principle is closely related to the
purposive approach referred to in (a).”’ (Footnotes omitted.)

[104] Section 20 provides:
‘(1) The Commission must consider the report of a Tribunal at a meeting [d]etermined
by the Chairperson, and the Commission must inform the respondent and, if
applicable, the complainant, in writing- (a) of the time and place of the meeting; and
(b) that he or she may submit written representations within a specified period for
consideration by the Commission.
(2) At the meeting referred to in subsection (1) the Commission must consider- (a) the
report concerned; and (b) any representations submitted in terms of subsection (1) (b).

28 Ibid para 662G; see also Road Traffic Management Corporation v Waymark (Pty) Limited [2019]
ZACC 12; 2019 (6) BCLR 749 (CC); 2019 (5) SA 29 (CC) para 29 citing Natal Joint Municipal Pension
Fund v Endumeni Municipality [2012] ZASCA 13; 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA).

(3) After consideration of a report and any applicable representations in terms of
subsection (2), the Commission must make a finding as to whether the respondent-
(a) is suffering from an incapacity; (b) is grossly incompetent; or (c) is guilty of gross
misconduct.
(4) If the Commission finds that the respondent is suffering from an incapacity, is
grossly incompetent or is guilty of gross misconduct, the Commission must submit that
finding, together with the reasons therefore and a copy of the report, including any
relevant material, of the Tribunal, to the Speaker of the National Assembly.
(5) If the Commission, after consideration of a report and any applicable
representations in terms of subsection (2) finds that the respondent- (a) is not grossly
incompetent, but that there is sufficient cause for the respondent to attend a specific
training or counselling course or be subjected to any other appropriate corrective
measure, the Commission may make a finding that the respondent must attend such
a course or be subjected to such measure; or (b) is guilty of a degree of misconduct
not amounting to gross misconduct, the Commission may, subject to section 17 (9),
impose any one or a combination of the remedial steps referred to in section 17 (8).
(6) The Commission must in writing inform the respondent in respect of whom a finding
referred to in subsection (4) or (5) is made, and, if applicable, the complainant, of that
finding and the reasons therefore.’

[105] The majority judgment holds as follows (on s 20):
‘[75]
Even were it to be accepted that the Tribunal’s findings are not binding on the
JSC, nor is the conclusion that the Tribunal drew from those findings, it still remained
for it, at the very least, to enquire into whether or not the Tribunal had addressed the
issues fully and fairly, and directed its mind to the right questions in reaching the
conclusion that Judge Motata should be removed from office. One finds no evidence
of it having done so. The report of the Tribunal is clear and comprehensive. I see no
reason to doubt the fairness of the procedure that was there adopted. There is no
complaint of a lack of balance in the approach of the Tribunal or suggestion that Judge
Motata did not receive a proper hearing before it. That notwithstanding, the JSC paid
scant regard to the factual findings of the Tribunal, without explaining why it did so. It
ignored that the Tribunal was the body that had the advantage of hearing the evidence
and assessing the credibility of the witnesses.’

[106] The essence of s 20 is that the JSC, upon receipt of the report(s) and
recommendation, must consider the reports and make its own decision whether the
respondent judge is guilty of misconduct simpliciter or gross misconduct and then
under s 177(1)(a), refer the matter to Parliament for its consideration. It is important to
interpret the word ‘consider’. In its plain English meaning ‘consider’ means ‘think
carefully about (something), typically before making a decision.’29 The high court albeit
on different grounds, interpreted s 20 to mean that the Tribunal could only make
recommendation(s), which the JSC, upon reflection, could accept or reject. Thus, the
JSC was not bound to accept the recommendation of the majority of the Tribunal.

[107] From a comprehensive consideration of s 20, read with the relevant provisions
of the JSC Act,30 it is discernible that the legislature intended for the JSC to establish
mechanisms for it to function efficiently through several Committees; considering the
onerous responsibility, which it bears, including the appointment and disciplining of
judges.31 The section is unambiguous and couched in clear language. It says,
unequivocally, once the JCT (the Tribunal) has held its investigations, it must submit
its report to the JSC for consideration before making the decision. When arriving at
this decision, the JSC is to consider not only the reports of the Tribunal but any
applicable representations and in the scheme of enquiries of this nature, any relevant
factors which the Tribunal did not consider.

[108] On these facts, it is common cause that the JCT submitted its report including
the judgments of the regional court and the full bench to the JSC. It is also apparent
from the record that the JSC did not fully interrogate the report of the Tribunal and the
additional material submitted to it. If it did, as it purported to have done, it did not
adequately reflect this with the result that there is doubt that it conducted itself as a
reasonable decision maker would, and should have.

[109] Notably, apart from the material before it, the JSC took cognisance of what it
believed were other relevant factors which the JCT did not consider such as, that
Judge Motata was no longer in active service as he had since retired and the possibility

29 Oxford English Dictionary.
30 Sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 and sections 177 and 178 of the Constitution.
31 For that reason, amongst other ad hoc committees, the JSC functions through the JCC and the JCT.

of him committing this ‘transgression’ was non-existent. This, however, is not the issue
for determination.

[110] The question should be, why did the legislature not couch s 20 in a stronger
language to the effect that ‘the report and recommendation of the Tribunal are final
and binding.’ The wording is not, ‘…upon considering the report and recommendations
of the JCT, the JSC shall accept them as they are.’ It carefully chose the word
‘consider’ in s 20(2) followed by s 20(3) which states ‘after consideration of a report
and any applicable representations in terms of subsection (2), the Commission must
make a finding …’. What mischief was it providing for, in legislation which deals with
disciplining of judges? The most obvious would be, it took into consideration that
impeachment of a judge is a serious matter with vast consequences which cannot and
should not be done arbitrarily. This should not be in the domain of a tribunal, a
subcommittee of the JSC, but should be that of the JSC itself.

[111] Taking a step back to look at the entire mosaic picture; it is apparent that the
JSC did not ‘enquire into whether or not the Tribunal had addressed the issues fully
and fairly’. For that reason, it becomes apparent that the JSC did not adhere to the
language of s 20. Its failure to consider the recommendation, gives s 20 a different
meaning than that intended by the legislature. The fact that the JSC failed to
adequately consider the recommendation of the Tribunal and directed its mind to what
FUL believed to be irrelevant considerations, makes an even stronger case why the
matter should be remitted to the JSC to do exactly that.

[112] There are disquieting features highlighted in the majority judgment that are of
serious concern, not only for this specific matter, but also for the entire judiciary and
the public at large – the JSC should address them appropriately. Questions can be
asked, whether the JSC should have delayed the matter, even if all the concerned
parties seem to have put it under pressure not to delay it any further? Was the JSC so
rushed and or pressurised to decide, to the point where procedural steps (defined in s
20) were ignored?

[113] It is the duty of the courts to ensure that the JSC, like all other similar
independent institutions (resembling Chapter 9 institutions), fulfils its responsibility

diligently when those affected by its decisions seek relief from the courts. Importantly,
in carrying out their responsibility to uphold the law and promote the rule of law, the
courts must not act with vengeance but rather allow room for reflection, on whether
the JSC, when constituted differently, can conduct itself in accordance with the
guidance provided by this Court in this matter. Especially taking into account the
previous judgments referred to in this judgment to; (a) address the highlighted
anomalies identified by the majority judgment and (b) ensure that proper processes
are in place to prevent a recurrence of such incidents in future cases that may come
before it. The approach adopted by the majority judgment would necessitate for the
amendment of s 20 to read that the recommendations of the Tribunal are final and
binding, and that the JSC should slavishly implement them. The unintended results of
an amendment implicit in the order of the majority judgment, is a function of the
legislature, and not that of the courts as prescribed by the principles of the separation
of powers.

[114] Despite all these concerns, the disquieting features, FUL seems to have
accepted the trite principle that this Court, along with the Constitutional Court, has
repeatedly emphasized in numerous judgments32 that, courts should exercise caution,
if not utmost deference, in usurping the decision-making function of a functionary,
simply because they are in a position comparable to that of the functionary to make
the decision, especially if motivated by expediency rather than principle.33 Deferring to
the JSC in this matter represents the more sensible approach and remedy. More so,
considering ‘…the importance of recognising and preserving the distinction between
a fair procedure and the merits of a particular case and the need to avoid being

32 Jacobs and Others v S [2019] ZACC 4; 2019 (5) BCLR 562 (CC) para 84; Airports Company South
Africa v Tswelokgotso Trading Enterprises CC 2019 (1) SA 204 (GJ) para 12; Bato Star Fishing (Pty)
Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others [2004] ZACC 15; 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC)
para 46-49; Cooper NO v First National Bank of SA Ltd (272/98) [2000] ZASCA 188; [2000] 4 All SA
597 (A) para 39.
33 Minister of Trade and Industry v Sundays River Citrus Company (Pty) Ltd (798/2018) [2019] ZASCA
184; [2020] 1 All SA 635 (SCA) (3 December 2019) para 31; https://www.judgesmatter.co.za/conduct/;
See also Koyabe v Minister for Home Affairs [2009] ZACC 23; 2010 (4) SA 327 (CC) para 36,
“[A]pproaching a court before the higher administrative body is given the opportunity to exhaust its own
existing mechanisms undermines the autonomy of the administrative process. It renders the judicial
process premature, effectively usurping the executive role and function. The scope of administrative
action extends over a wide range of circumstances, and the crafting of specialist administrative
procedures suited to the particular administrative action in question enhances procedural fairness as
enshrined in our Constitution.’

seduced by what may seem to be the inevitable result of a rehearing. The danger of
assuming that a particular result is inevitable has been pointed out frequently.’34

[115] The JSC is best advised to study this judgment (both majority and minority
judgments), reflect on it, establish processes in line with this judgement, and properly
consider the report and recommendation of the JCT. Nonetheless, this Court cannot
be seen as endorsing an ‘eye for an eye’ approach, but rather a path of reconciliation,
based on the values underpinning the Constitution, aspiring toward a united nation
that seeks to rebuild itself as one, irrespective of race, sex, or creed. This case should
not be viewed through the lens of expediency but rather as an opportunity to
strengthen the systems within the JSC that hold judges accountable.

[116] Lastly, we must address two issues: First, that Judge Motata was fined an
amount in excess of R 1 Million to be paid to SAJEI (a body responsible for judicial
education). This was an innovation on the part of the JSC, which was not explained.
Section 20(5) of the JSC Act provides for ‘a respondent judge to attend a specific
training or counselling course or be subjected to any other appropriate corrective
measure; the Commission may make a finding that a respondent judge (in this case
Judge Motata) attends such a course or be subjected to such measure….’ This would
have been the appropriate measure because then Judge Motata would have (through
an intensive programme) come to terms with the magnitude of his transgression. He
would have thereafter taken steps to correct the perception that he has created about
the judiciary, including tendering a public apology and many other measures.

[117] Second, the issue of the Secretary of the Commission deposing to affidavits on
behalf of the JSC, despite not being a member or Commissioner of the JSC, which is
covered thoroughly in the majority judgment. One point to make, it was disconcerting
to witness a respected body like the JSC comprising of judges, and legal practitioners
from both the Bar and side Bar and law professors being found wanting in procedural
matters of their own institution. The JSC should correct this, if it has not done so
already. In any event, if the Secretary (who is a layperson) deposes to an affidavit,
surely, the trite principle is that such must be confirmed in a confirmatory affidavit by

34 Cooper op cit footnote 8.

the responsible person/Chairperson of the Committee concerned, on behalf of the
JSC.35

[118] In conclusion, for the reasons in the preceding paras, and as all parties
believed, the appropriate remedy is to remit the matter to the JSC, to rectify the
deficiencies in its previous proceedings properly. Therefore, we would have granted
the following order:
The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel, where so

employed.
The cross appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel,
where so employed.
The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following:
‘(a)
The application is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel where
so employed.
(b)
The matter is remitted to the JSC to reconsider the reports and the
recommendation of the JCT, including other available material, afresh ensuring
that every ruling which is made, is supported by reasons. The remittal should
be dealt with within 90 days from the date of this order.’

________________
BC MOCUMIE
JUDGE OF APPEAL

______________________
MBS MASIPA
ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL

35 See Ganes and another v Telekom Namibia Ltd 2004 (3) SA 615 (SCA).

Appearances

For the appellant:
C Steinberg SC and N Luthuli
Instructed by:
Webber Wentzel Attorneys, Johannesburg

Symington De Kok Inc, Bloemfontein

For the first respondent:
C Georgiades SC and YS Ntloko
Instructed by:
The State Attorney, Johannesburg

The State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEAL

From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:

22 JUNE 2023
Status:
Immediate
The following summary is for the benefit of the media in the reporting of this case and does not form part of
the judgments of the Supreme Court of Appeal
Freedom Under Law v Judicial Service Commission and Another (Case no 550/2022) [2023]
ZASCA 103 (22 June 2023)
Today, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) handed down judgment upholding an appeal against a
decision of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (the high court).
The issue before the SCA was whether the conduct of Judge Nkola John Motata (Judge Motata) is of
such a kind as to render him incapable of performing the duties of his office.
In the early hours of 6 January 2007, Judge Motata, attempted to execute a U-turn whilst driving his
vehicle along Glen Eagles Road in Hurlingham, Johannesburg, when he reversed into the boundary wall
of a residential property owned by Mr Richard Baird. Having been informed telephonically of the
incident by Mr Lucky Melk, the tenant of the property, Mr Baird arrived at the scene, whereafter he
contacted the police. In the course of those events, Judge Motata became involved in a verbal altercation
with Mr Baird. Mr Baird, who recorded some of the events as they unfolded, formed the view that Judge
Motata was inebriated. In due course Judge Motata was charged – and despite his plea of not guilty –
convicted of drunken driving before the Regional Court (the trial court).
Following upon the events of 6 January 2007, three complaints came to be lodged against Judge Motata
with the first respondent, the Judicial Service Commission (the JSC). Two of the complaints – one
lodged by a senior advocate at the Pretoria Bar (the Pretorius SC complaint) and the other by Afriforum
(the Afriforum complaint) were referred to the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of the JSC (the Tribunal). The
Tribunal found that Judge Motata was intoxicated at the time of the incident, by the time he went to
trial (and subsequently appeared before the Tribunal), he would have considered the evidence, including
the visual and audio recordings made at the time of the incident, and realised that ‘a denial of
intoxication was against all [the] prevailing evidence [and] could not be true’.
AfriForum, with reference to Judge Motata’s conduct and utterances on the night of the incident, had
complained that any judge who makes himself guilty of racist conduct has no place on the Bench. The
Tribunal took the view that racist conduct on the part of a judge constitutes gross misconduct. It
concluded that Judge Motata’s conduct constituted gross misconduct and recommended to the JSC that
the provisions of s 177(1)(a) of the Constitution be invoked.

However, when the recommendation of the Tribunal served before the JSC, the majority of the JSC (the
majority decision) rejected the Tribunal’s recommendation. It found Judge Motata guilty of misconduct
simpliciter and imposed a fine of R1 152 650.40 to be paid to the South African Judicial Education
Institute.
On 21 July 2020, the appellant, Freedom Under Law (FUL), issued an application out of the Gauteng
Division of the High Court, Johannesburg (the high court) to review and set aside the JSC’s decision of
10 October 2019, and to substitute that decision with a finding that Judge Motata is guilty of gross
misconduct as contemplated in s 177(1)(a) of the Constitution, alternatively, for the matter to be
remitted to the JSC to be decided afresh taking into account the findings of the court. FUL contended
that Judge Motata’s conduct constituted gross misconduct, which warranted his removal from office in
terms of s 177 of the Constitution. The high court rejected all of FUL’s grounds of review.
On appeal, the SCA held that the approach followed by the majority decision was untenable for a
number of reasons. To name a few, the SCA found that the majority decision of the JSC did not engage
with Judge Motata’s dishonesty regarding his intoxication at all. It merely regards his ‘proven
intoxication’ as a mitigating factor. It held that the JSC did not pause to consider why the intoxication
was a relevant consideration or seek to demonstrate how Judge Motata’s breach of the standards of
judicial conduct was rendered any less egregious by his intoxication. The JSC disregarded the factual
findings of the Tribunal, without explaining why it did so. It ignored that the Tribunal was the body that
had the advantage of hearing the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses. The SCA held
further that the majority decision ought to have enquired into whether or not the Tribunal had addressed
the issues fully and fairly and directed its mind to the right questions in reaching the conclusion that
Judge Motata should be removed from office. The SCA found no evidence of it having done so. The
SCA emphasised that the majority of the JSC did not start with a clean slate, but was bound, not just by
the findings of the Tribunal, but also the trial court in Judge Motata’s criminal trial. The SCA added
that had the JSC approached the evidence holistically instead of in a compartmentalised fashion, as it
did, then it would not have been as receptive as it was to Judge Motata’s assertions, including the
assertion that he had been provoked by the use of the ‘k-word’, which he ultimately conceded before
the Tribunal had not been employed by Mr Baird.
The SCA held that the high court, like the JSC, had also failed to consider the impact of Judge Motata’s
conduct on the public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary and
that on all of the evidence, there was no alternative to removal. In conclusion, the SCA held that the
recommendation by the Tribunal that the ‘provisions of section 177(1)(a) of the Constitution be
invoked’, must stand. The majority of the SCA (Ponnan JA (Schippers JA and Kathree-Setiloane AJA
concurring) remitted the matter to the JSC to be dealt with in terms of s 20(4) of the Judicial Service
Commission Act 9 of 1994, namely that the JSC must submit the finding that Judge Motata is guilty of
gross misconduct to the Speaker of the National Assembly.
The dissenting judgment, penned by Mocumie JA and Masipa AJA (the minority), agree with the
reasoning and findings of the majority of the SCA. The minority proposes, however, that the matter be
remitted to the JSC for reconsideration.
~~~~ends~~~~