- The complaint against Justice Edwin Cameron centred around his appointment as Stellenbosch University Chancellor.
- The complainant, advocate Johan Bruwer, argued that Cameron had breached the Judicial Code of Conduct.
- Bruwer's complaint stemmed from the fact that Cameron had been approached by the Stellenbosch University Vice-Chancellor for the Chancellor post.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC), led by Appeal Court Justice Dumisani Zondi, has dismissed a complaint by advocate Johan Bruwer with regard to the circumstances of Justice Edwin Cameron's nomination and appointment as Stellenbosch University's (SU) Chancellor.
Bruwer lodged a complaint against Cameron in terms of Section 14(1) of the Judicial Services Commission Act 9 of 1994.
The complaint stemmed from a communication Cameron had with the university's Rector and Vice-Chancellor, Professor Wim de Villiers, for the position of Chancellor at SU.
It was alleged that De Villiers had tried to convince Cameron to accept the nomination as SU chancellor, News24 reported.
In his complaint, Bruwer accused Cameron of not complying with the Constitution and the judicial Code of Conduct, and alleged that he had failed to disclose the nature and extent of the communication he had with people who approached him from the university regarding the chancellor nomination.
Cameron's communication with persons from SU on the nomination was around the time when a Constitutional Court panel, which he formed part of, was considering an application for leave to appeal by organisation Gelyke Kanse (Equal Opportunities) as well as the convocation of the university and others, to have the institution's language policy reviewed and set aside.
News24 previously reported that the Constitutional Court ruled that the language policy at the SU is constitutionally justified.
READ | Independent probe clears SU rector of interference in ConCourt language policy case
According to Justice Zondi's ruling, dated 5 October, Bruwer, in his complaint, had also alleged that Cameron failed to disclose the nature and extent of communication he had with Gelyke Kanse and their legal representatives.
He contends that Cameron's omission of his discussions was deliberate and was in clear violation of the Constitution, the common law and the Judicial Code of Conduct (the Code).
Bruwer argued that Justice Cameron's conduct was in breach of Articles 5, 6, 9, 10(1)(e), 11(1)(a), 11(1)(b) and 13 of the Code.
He submitted that:" Cameron J wilfully – or in an act of gross negligence - contravened various articles of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Judicial Service Commission Act, No. 9 of 1994.
"The conduct of Cameron J was incompatible with or unbecoming the holding of judicial office, and was prejudicial to the independence, dignity, efficiency and effectiveness of the Courts, specifically of the Constitutional Court."
In the ruling, Zondi said the facts of the matter were that Justice Cameron was approached by the Rector of the University on 2 July 2019, asking him to accept the nomination as Chancellor of the University.
Cameron had expressed his reluctance, and the Rector asked that he consider the request.
On 2 August 2019, Cameron declined the nomination after careful reflection and cited, among others, the pending litigation in the Gelyke Kanse matter, which made it impossible for his nomination to proceed. The Rector accepted this.
ALSO READ | Stellenbosch University probes claims that VC attempted to influence language policy case
"The Gelyke Kanse matter was heard on 8 August 2019. At that stage, he had declined the nomination. The question is whether he should have disclosed to the parties and the Court that, before the hearing, he had had discussions with the Rector about his possible nomination as Chancellor.
"The complainant contends that Justice Cameron 'already was legally obliged to divulge the details of his secret contacts – during a period of more than a month – with the First Respondent . . .'
"In my view, these facts objectively assessed, would not provide a sufficient basis for an obligation 21 to disclose to arise, unless it can be shown that he entertained the idea to reconsider the request when he was approached again.
"In any event, the question whether or not he was obliged to make disclosure of the communication he had with the Rector before the hearing of the matter should not be evaluated in isolation. The evaluation must take account of all this evidence...
"In conclusion, a complaint based on the allegations of contravention of Articles 5, 6, 9, 10(1)(e) and 13 of the Code should be dismissed," the 22-page ruling read.
Bruwer also alleged that Cameron was in breach of Articles 11(1)(a); that he commented publicly on the merits of the case after the hearing, but before the judgment was handed down.
The complaint was based on an interview Cameron had with Rapport newspaper on 29 September 2019.
"In terms of Article 11(1)(a) a Judge must save in the discharge of judicial office, not comment publicly on the merits of any case pending before, or determined by, that judge or any other Court.
"I have read the newspaper article, on which reliance is placed and it does not support the allegation on which this complaint is based. [80] As regards the charge based on violation of Article 11(1)(b) there is no factual support for it and should similarly fail.
"Particulars of the radio station on which the alleged interview took place as well as the content of that interview are not disclosed. In the result, the complaint is dismissed as it is lacking in substance."