The Supreme Court of Appeal overturned the recommendation of a Mpumalanga advocate for appointment as a High Court judge after finding that the Judicial Service
Commission (JSC) failed to properly consider concerns over his unpaid debts and judicial temperament.
The appeal court ruled that the JSC acted unlawfully when it recommended Adv Johannes Hendrikus Roelofse for appointment to the Mpumalanga High Court in 2021 without adequately considering evidence that he owed the Mpumalanga Society of Advocates (MSA) more than R241 000 in unpaid bar fees and had failed to disclose a school fees debt that resulted in a civil judgment of just over R31 000.
The MSA contended that the commissioners did not properly consider its objections to the appointment. The unanimous judgment, however, does not find that Roelofse is unfit to become a judge. Instead, it concludes that the JSC failed to fulfil its constitutional duty by recommending him without properly interrogating all the relevant information. The matter has now been sent back to the commission for reconsideration.
Roelofse, who has served as an acting judge in the Mpumalanga High Court since 2018 and whose final stint on the bench last year included a landmark ruling in the R40-million estate dispute involving former deputy president David “DD” Mabuza, told Sunday World he would not challenge the judgment.
“I have read the judgment with much anguish. Of course, I am disappointed. To tell you otherwise would be untruthful,” he said.
“I accept the judgment because the law has spoken.”
Reflecting on the criticism of his conduct during the JSC interview, Roelofse acknowledged he could have responded differently.
“I reacted in the extreme situation of the interview. I could have handled it better, and perhaps that moment may not have been a reflection of who I really am. After all, judges are also human.”
He said he would not pursue any further legal challenge.
“I do not envisage any further steps to challenge the judgment. The process must run its course. I am a servant of the law, and I shall comply.”
Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Tati Makgoka said the appeal was not about whether Roelofse deserved judicial office but whether the JSC had discharged its constitutional obligation to make an informed decision.
“The JSC’s decision to recommend the respondent following the October 2021 interview is flawed in two respects,” Makgoka wrote, referring to the commission’s failure to properly consider concerns over Roelofse’s judicial temperament and financial disclosures.
Although the court stressed that financial hardship alone does not disqualify a candidate from judicial office, it also presented that the JSC can only properly assess a candidate when it has all the relevant information before it.
It also examined concerns about Roelofse’s judicial temperament.
The MSA had complained that he frequently interrupted counsel, behaved abrasively in court and was not readily open to persuasion.
Those concerns resurfaced during his October 2021 JSC interview, where Roelofse repeatedly interrupted commissioner Thandazani Madonsela SC while answering questions about his unpaid bar fees.
The appeal court said the exchange reflected the concerns previously raised by the advocates’ body.
The MSA welcomed the judgment but declined to comment further while the matter returns to the JSC.
Judges Matter, a civil society watchdog, described the ruling as a significant step for judicial accountability.
Research and advocacy officer at the watchdog, Mbekezeli Benjamin, said the ruling confirms that submissions from organisations familiar with judicial candidates strengthen the appointment process.
The JSC said it had noted the SCA ruling and would take it into consideration.
- The Supreme Court of Appeal overturned the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) 2021 recommendation to appoint Advocate Johannes Hendrikus Roelofse to the Mpumalanga High Court, citing insufficient consideration of his unpaid debts and judicial temperament concerns.
- Roelofse owed over R241,000 in unpaid bar fees and had an undisclosed school fees debt resulting in a civil judgment, issues not properly interrogated by the JSC before recommending his appointment.
- The court clarified the judgment was not on Roelofse's fitness to serve but on the JSC's failure to fulfill its constitutional duty by recommending him without full assessment; the case is sent back to the JSC for reconsideration.
- Roelofse accepted the ruling without plans to appeal, acknowledging his interview conduct could have been better and committing to comply with the legal process.
- Judicial accountability group Judges Matter praised the ruling as strengthening the judicial appointment process by emphasizing the importance of input from legal bodies familiar with candidates.
