“No Context In The World Can Justifies Malema’s Attacks On Judiciary” Judge Breaks Silence

A Western Cape High Court judge has strongly challenged Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema’s repeated attacks on South Africa’s judiciary, declaring that “no context in the world” can justify such conduct.

The remarks were made during proceedings on Wednesday, 11 November 2026, as the court heard an application by the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) seeking to have Parliament reconsider Malema’s suitability to serve on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

The case centres on concerns about Malema’s public criticism of judges and magistrates, particularly following court decisions that have gone against him or his political party.

Representing Malema, Advocate Mfesane Ka-Siboto argued that the statements made by the EFF leader should be understood within their broader political context. However, Judge Diane Davis challenged that argument, making it clear that political circumstances cannot justify attacks on the integrity of the judiciary.

The Helen Suzman Foundation argues that Malema’s conduct raises serious questions about his suitability to remain on the JSC, a constitutional body responsible for interviewing candidates for judicial positions and recommending appointments.

The organisation wants the court to set aside National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza’s decision of 30 April 2026, which declined to ensure that Parliament considered Malema’s suitability for the commission.

The foundation is not directly asking the court to remove Malema from the JSC. Instead, it wants Parliament to be directed to reconsider whether he remains an appropriate representative, taking his conduct into account.

HSF also wants the court to declare the Judicial Service Commission Act constitutionally invalid to the extent that it does not require the commission to adopt a code of conduct for its members.

Malema has opposed the application, describing it as an abuse of court processes and an attempt to silence him as an opposition leader.

His legal team maintains that he has the constitutional right to express political opinions and criticise institutions, arguing that the foundation has failed to establish a proper legal basis for compelling Parliament to reconsider his appointment.

Meanwhile, counsel representing the National Assembly Speaker argued that Didiza does not possess the broad powers the foundation believes she has to initiate proceedings for Malema’s removal.

The matter was heard by a full bench of the Western Cape High Court, comprising Judges Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood, Diane Davis and Mas-udah Pangarker.

Following Wednesday’s proceedings, the court reserved judgment, meaning the legal dispute remains unresolved.

The case has reignited debate about the balance between freedom of political expression and the need to protect the independence and credibility of South Africa’s judiciary, particularly when elected politicians serve on institutions responsible for judicial appointments.

Source: https://x.com/News24/status/2120567848569348166?a=K6aUD5a-05Nd_Kbgo8I&s=19