The three arms of Government are designed to be a check and balance to each other. We are accustomed to and accept the judiciary passing judgment on Executive functions, doing the same of the legislature. Such criticism is part of our constitutional framework. We accept this without question and praise it in a democratic society. It’s an accepted social construct. The same applies to the Legislatures oversight of the other two branches. However when the Executive steps in and is critical of the judiciary we cry foul.
The Judiciary enjoys security of tenure, they enjoy a unique and special position in any democratic society. That does not make them immune from criticism. The criticism does not constitute and should not be construed as an attempt to undermine the judiciary, merely because it is made. The Executive is not saying it will disobey court orders, and yes the Government decided to abandon the Judgement of the Pitseng Gaoberekwe (MHSRIP) as it was entitled to do as any client is, nor that it will violate the integrity of the courts.
The Exectutives criticism is specific in the context of human rights. That the judiciary has failed the nation in upholding the legal provisions that protect and guide not only individual rights but the democratic values of the country. Those rights and values are at that centre of this administration’s mandate.
While criticism by the Executive of the judiciary is unusual it is not unique. Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, French President Sarkozy and famously American President Trump have all criticized the judiciary, and were rightly condemned for it. Their criticism sought to protect themselves from prosecution and they sought to undermine the judiciary with concerted attacks to justify their claims of victimization. Such types of criticism can and ought to be condemned. The current instance by H.E markedly different.
H.E has been clear from the onset that the aspirations of his administration is to achieve a government and a democratic dispensation based on Human Rights and Dignity. In this respect HE says the judiciary has failed, not the laws but the judiciary in their interpretation of such laws. The president did not attack or single out any judge. The critique was centered on the judiciary as a whole. This is his oversight role. It is not a violation of judicial independence. On the contrary the Executive in his criticism of the judiciary seeks to ensure and protect democratic governance.
For too long we have stepped on egg shells around issues pertaining to the judiciary. They (judges) are not idols to be worshiped, unquestioned from afar. They must be openly questioned, particularly on issues of Rights and Dignity of all within their jurisdiction. Where they fail they must be held to account, even by the Executive.
Least we forget, that as one of the three arms of Government, the Judiciary are servants of the people and not to protected and worshipped by the other arms of Government. It is the right, if not the duty of the other arms of goverment to be critical of them.
Such criticism is a far cry from an Executive that seeks to undermine the court system and the judiciary. AND criticism must not be construed as undermining the Judiciary simply because it’s the Executive who makes it.
