A contentious shift in the Mpumalanga High Court’s policy on virtual hearings has sparked backlash. Critics are accusing the court of prioritising the interests of a small group of lawyers over public access to justice.
A new directive from the Judge President Segopotje Sheila Mphahlele now mandates that lawyers must seek approval for virtual hearings, marking a departure from pandemic-era practices where virtual proceedings were the norm.
Human rights lawyer Richard Spoor, known for his advocacy on social justice issues, voiced his disapproval on social media.
“After heavy lobbying from the local bar, the Mbombela High Court has decided to put an end to virtual hearings, which have worked brilliantly since lockdown.”
Virtual platforms made court system more accessible
Spoor praised the use of virtual platforms like Microsoft Teams, emphasising that they made the court system “more affordable, quicker, and accessible”.
Virtual hearings, he explained, eliminated the need for costly travel and accommodation for advocates from other regions.
“Virtual hearings also made it easier and more affordable to brief advocates from other jurisdictions to appear in the Mbombela High Court, as it was no longer necessary to incur the huge costs associated with their time, travel, and accommodation,” he posted.
The new directive, issued on November 4, now requires lawyers wishing to use virtual proceedings to submit a formal request to the presiding judge.
While the policy retains virtual and hybrid options, physical appearances are once again the default—a shift that Spoor and others argue undermines access to justice.
“This didn’t suit some members of the local bar who felt disadvantaged by the competition,” Spoor said.
Spoor added that these lawyers lobbied for the change. “This is bad news for litigants in Mpumalanga; it is bad for access and for the quality of justice.”
Virtual hearings not entirely discontinued
In response, the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) told Sunday World that virtual hearings have not been entirely discontinued. “The attached directives do not put an end to virtual hearings,” they stated. “The Mpumalanga Division retains the dual system (virtual and in-person court appearances).”
According to the OCJ, the move towards in-person hearings comes after extensive consultations: “The Judge President consulted widely, including with the legal practitioners, in particular those from the Mpumalanga Province, members of the Judiciary, and other stakeholders, before issuing the new directives.”
Emphasising fairness and affordability, the OCJ pointed out that “these directives are meant to accommodate all the litigants and not force those who prefer physical court appearances to be on virtual platforms even when that could be unaffordable for them.”
“All hearings of civil trials shall be conducted via in-person court appearance. Any party or legal representative wishing for a virtual court appearance shall submit a request to the presiding judge.”
Interest of small group trumping interests of many
Spoor, however, believes this policy represents a step backward for public access to justice, declaring. “It seems incredible that the self-interest of a small group of lawyers can trump the interests of the wider public and the cause of justice.”
Meanwhile, the local bar, officially the Mpumalanga Society of Advocates, has defended the changes as beneficial for legal practice in the province.
“We need to state that physical appearances in the high court stem from the Superior Courts Act,” said Twain Ngwenya, representative of the local bar.
“The provisions for virtual appearance were created to accommodate the enforcement of pandemic regulations, which are not permanent in nature.
“Those who are not dealing with cases involving individual justice seekers from rural areas have no appreciation of the usefulness of physical court appearances, but advocates who represent them in court do.”
Physical court appearances essential
Ngwenya told Sunday World that physical court appearances are essential for justice to be seen, allowing affected litigants and community members to attend cases in person.
“Litigants living in villages have expressed serious challenges that come with virtual platforms, which include connectivity issues and the support they receive from family members and the broader community,” he said.
“The issue of travel costs is also a myth because litigants not familiar with advanced technology often have to travel to their lawyers’ offices in the city to be assisted with the virtual hearings.”
When asked about accusations that the local bar was more concerned with competition from out-of-province legal representatives, Ngwenya dismissed the idea.
“The legal fraternity is not cut in stone. Remember that Mpumalanga is the last province to get a high court in South Africa. We have trainee lawyers and newly admitted lawyers who are still learning the ropes. What better place to do it except in an open court?”
“You can’t master the art of litigation if your only opportunity is online. Being in court helps young lawyers gain the necessary experience because you are watching everything that is happening during a hearing.”
