No-nonsense judge does not deserve censure

Judge Ratha Mokgoatlheng has apologised for speaking his mind from the bench. The mob got to him. They came down on him like a ton of bricks. 

Excoriating a lawyer in the Senzo Meyiwa trial, who wanted the court to stand down because he would be running the Comrades Marathon, a furious Mokgoatlheng said: “I don’t think a white advocate can have the gall to ask me that. Never.”

The speech police went ballistic. They were outraged. Politicians — who, incidentally, are handsomely paid to spout a lot of nonsense — and their fellow travellers predictably jumped on the bandwagon. This week, Mokgoatlheng caved in, apologising “heartily and unreservedly with no qualifications”. He seemed to go a bit over the top, obviously trying to cover all bases.

I don’t think he should have eaten his words. Judges should not be forced by a baying mob to withdraw statements made from the bench. Soon they could be compelled to retract their judgments. Also, we’re being a bit too precious. He may have misspoken, but he was making a salient point, which seems to have been lost in the clutter — and certainly didn’t require a grovelling mea culpa.

But I have a lot of time for Mokgoatlheng and people like him. He’s an asset to society. Honest, no-nonsense, a straight shooter; and unlike other people in public life, who won’t see a corner without wanting to cut it, he always does things by the book. In a country crawling with hyenas, such people should be cherished. Instead, we hang him. 

Mokgoatlheng is also a role model. Professional football is a glamorous yet short-lived life. Many soccer players, doted on by millions during their careers, die as paupers because — blinded by fame and fortune — they hardly prepare for life after football. Mokgoatlheng, an excellent footballer in his heyday, is a shining example of how to use sport as a stepping stone to a more accomplished career.

My father couldn’t eat for days after Mokgoatlheng, along with Kaizer Motaung and Msomi Khoza, left his beloved Orlando Pirates to form Kaizer Chiefs. He was mortified after the government — with the connivance of the odious Bethuel Morolo, the el supremo of football at the time — compelled Pirates to get rid of its coloured and Indian players. So Gerald van der Haer, Hans Moses, Ralph Hendricks, Rashid Khan and Bernard Hartze, the man they called Dancing Shoes — the core of the best Bucs eleven ever assembled — had to go in one fell swoop. It was a cruel injustice, not only to those players but to millions of fans, especially Bucs supporters. And so, for a while, the situation at home was a bit funereal.

Mokgoatlheng is known as a no-nonsense judge. He came out of retirement to take over the trial after the original presiding officer, judge Tshifiwa Maumela, was suspended in June 2023. What seemed to fascinate many people was the prospect of an ex-professional footballer taking over a trial on the murder of another. But this case seems to have been jinxed.

Senzo Meyiwa, Orlando Pirates’ goalkeeper and captain of the national soccer team, was killed in October 2014. From the start the police seemed to be going down a lot of rabbit holes, arresting seemingly the wrong people. It took them an inordinately long time to round up the suspects, who made their first court appearance in October 2021.

Freedom of speech is enshrined in our constitution, yet many people are reluctant to speak their minds or raise their heads above the parapet for fear of being subjected to similar treatment

Then one lawyer died, and another was arrested and later disbarred. The proceedings have so far raised more questions than answers. There’s a public perception — based on evidence presented in court — that not all the culprits or masterminds behind this murder are behind bars. This saga has been running for too long. The public wants justice. 

One can therefore understand Mokgoatlheng’s frustration with a lawyer who wants to delay the process for flimsy or personal reasons. The irony is that the marathon-running lawyer who started this controversy has been left unscathed. He’s portrayed as the victim. And we love victims. He’s smugly watching from the sideline as people who seem to have nothing better to do with their lives take up the cudgels on his behalf, and pile on the judge.

But the lawyer is the person who should be called to order. First, he told Mokgoatlheng, not in person but through the registrar, of his unavailability. That in itself is a show of disrespect. Second, he knew in November, more than six months ago — which is when entries for the Comrades closed — that he would otherwise be engaged on this particular day. But he kept that to himself until the last moment. He needs to be asked a few questions. 

There’s also a growing tendency among certain lawyers to disrespect judges. It’s a disturbing development that should be nipped in the bud. Forcing a judge to retract a statement they make on the bench feeds into or encourages such a penchant. Soon we shall be asking judges to tailor their judgments to suit public proclivities, or retract them altogether. It could be a slippery slope. South Africa is a constitutional democracy, which means that the judiciary is not only independent, but is also mediator and therefore guardian of our basic law. It therefore requires public confidence — and respect — if it is to adequately carry out its mandate. 

But there are broader issues involved. Freedom of speech is enshrined in our constitution, yet many people are reluctant to speak their minds or raise their heads above the parapet for fear of being subjected to similar treatment. And the country loses. In fact, we’re where we are now because of our unwillingness to tell each other some home truths. And so, in our desire not to offend, or call delinquents to order, we’ve allowed lies — and corruption — to flourish. 

A speech doesn’t have to be perfect. And in any case, I’ve yet to see a wound that’s been inflicted by an idea. So let the flowers bloom.