Bad News for Malema & EFF as Another Big Foundation Gang Up to Remove Him From JSC

The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) is intensifying its legal challenge against Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema’s continued membership of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), arguing that his conduct raises serious questions about his suitability to serve on the influential constitutional body.

The matter is expected to be heard in the Western Cape High Court on Wednesday, 11 November 2026, placing Malema’s position within the institution responsible for interviewing candidates and recommending judicial appointments under renewed scrutiny.

The foundation wants the court to set aside National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza’s decision of 30 April, in which she declined to ensure that Parliament considered whether Malema remained suitable to serve as one of its designated representatives on the JSC.

HSF argues that Malema, who has served on the commission since 2014, has repeatedly criticised judges and magistrates when their decisions go against him or the EFF. It maintains that his public statements and conduct risk undermining confidence in the judiciary, particularly because he occupies a position within the institution responsible for recommending judges for appointment.

The organisation also points to his recent conviction on five criminal charges relating to the unlawful use of a firearm and his subsequent sentence of an effective five years’ imprisonment.

However, the foundation is not asking the court to directly remove Malema. Instead, it wants the National Assembly compelled to reconsider his suitability and determine whether he should continue representing Parliament on the commission.

HSF is also challenging the constitutionality of the JSC Act, arguing that the legislation fails to provide for a binding code of conduct governing commissioners or establish appropriate sanctions for misconduct.

In response, Malema has dismissed the application as an abuse of court processes, questioning why the foundation did not raise its concerns earlier if it genuinely believed his conduct was inappropriate.

He further argues that the application is politically motivated and constitutes an attempt to undermine his freedom of expression as an opposition leader.

Malema maintains that criticism of judicial decisions should not be interpreted as an attempt to discredit the judiciary. He has also argued that the relief sought by the foundation interferes with Parliament’s constitutional responsibilities and violates the separation of powers.

The forthcoming hearing is expected to raise important questions about accountability, parliamentary oversight and the standards expected of individuals serving on institutions responsible for safeguarding judicial independence.

The outcome could have significant implications for the regulation and conduct of JSC commissioners in South Africa.

Meek_Feeds3 feedback-opera-news-app@opera.com