White foundation takes Malema JSC suitability fight to Western Cape court

The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) has approached the Western Cape High Court seeking an order compelling Parliament to consider whether Julius Malema remains fit to serve on South Africa's Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

In court papers filed on Thursday, HSF asked the court to review and set aside National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza's April 30 decision not to consider Malema's suitability, arguing that Parliament has a constitutional duty to assess whether he should continue serving on the body responsible for interviewing and recommending judges for appointment.

The foundation said it was not asking the court to directly remove Malema from the JSC, but rather to compel Parliament to fulfil its constitutional obligations.

"The application does not ask the Court to decide Mr Malema's suitability; it asks the Court to require the National Assembly to fulfil its constitutional duty to consider that question," HSF argued in its filing.

The application cites repeated attacks by Malema on judges and magistrates who rule against him or his party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), saying such conduct risks undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

HSF also referenced Malema's recent sentencing to five years' imprisonment for discharging a firearm during a public event in 2018, a conviction he is currently appealing.

"Mr Malema thus sits on the body that appoints our judges, while at the same time maligns and undermines their credibility when they apply the law against him," the foundation said.

Among the incidents highlighted in the application was Malema's criticism of Magistrate Twanet Olivier outside the East London Magistrates' Court on April 16, 2026, following proceedings in his firearm case.

Addressing supporters gathered outside court, Malema accused Olivier of racism and incompetence.

"Magistrate Olivier is a racist of note," Malema told supporters, later alleging she failed to properly apply the law.

HSF argued that such remarks formed part of a broader pattern of attacks on judicial officers.

The foundation also pointed to previous criticism of Malema's conduct by organisations including Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac), which in 2021 lodged a complaint with Parliament over what it described as "unwarranted" and "unbecoming" comments about judges.

In addition, Judges Matter previously condemned Malema for accusing Olivier of corruption and incompetence without evidence, describing the conduct as an attack on judicial independence.

Under Section 178 of South Africa's Constitution, Malema serves as one of six Members of Parliament appointed to the JSC, including three representatives from opposition parties.

The case also challenges the constitutionality of the Judicial Service Commission Act itself.

HSF argues that the legislation is deficient because it fails to require the adoption of a binding code of conduct for commissioners or provide sanctions for misconduct.

"The Foundation also brings a constitutional challenge to the Judicial Service Commission Act, contending that the Act is constitutionally deficient because it does not require the JSC to adopt a binding code of conduct for commissioners or provide sanctions for non-compliance," the application states.

The organisation is seeking a declaration that the law is constitutionally invalid, although it wants that declaration temporarily suspended to allow Parliament time to amend the legislation.

In the meantime, HSF wants the court to impose an interim framework compelling the JSC to adopt a binding code of conduct governing commissioners' behaviour.

The matter places renewed scrutiny on the conduct of JSC commissioners and Parliament's oversight responsibilities, while raising broader questions about judicial independence and accountability in South Africa's constitutional democracy.

At the time of filing, neither Malema nor Didiza had submitted responding court papers.