Adv Sesi Baloyi asks tough question to candidates for Judge of Gauteng high court.
A high-stakes Judicial Service Commission interview descended into an intense interrogation as panel members relentlessly challenged an acting judge’s judicial record, constitutional expertise, and basic understanding of core legal principles.
The tense hearing opened with direct questioning regarding Advocate Meiring and the allocation of criminal cases during recent acting stints on the bench.
A panel commissioner pointed out that despite completing 29 weeks of acting duties during 2025 and 2026, Advocate Meiring had presided over noticeably few criminal trials.
The commissioner highlighted that the list of matters handled by Advocate Meiring contained only two criminal trials alongside appeals and a bail application.
Addressing potential underutilization on the bench, the commissioner asked: “Is there a particular reason um that you haven’t set in more criminal trials than two? And and I ask because in in previous uh interviews there’s been an issue about that division requiring more criminal uh criminal judges and here you are fully available and it appears on the face of it you may have been underutilized. Do you care to to comment on that?”
Advocate Meiring defended the record by explaining: “I think it’s just the allocation. I I I have not been allocated to another to to another criminal trial. And I had this long um criminal trial that had been coming, the one that CC 65 of 2019, the Mabuza matter. I only finalized that in June with the sentencing. And that is because what when you are acting and you’ve got a part head matter, you’ve got to set it down for future in during the recess periods. So it tended to then be something that you know occupied my time quite long but but there is really nothing apart from just the allocations. There is no reason why I haven’t done any criminal matters”.
Confirming that personal preference played no role in the court schedule, Advocate Meiring firmly denied having any unwillingness to preside over criminal proceedings.
The scrutiny intensified significantly when another commissioner raised serious concerns over how Advocate Meiring answered paragraph 10 of the formal candidate questionnaire, which explicitly requires applicants to detail their direct contribution to the development of the law.
The commissioner expressed deep alarm that the response submitted by Advocate Meiring listed personal attributes, mentorship, and general abilities rather than substantive legal jurisprudence.
Challenging the candidate’s grasp of the requirement, the commissioner stated: “I am concerned that your response seems to suggest or suggest that you may not have understood what that question is about. you you give us a list of things including your personal attributes um how and and I don’t want to read it it’s a list from one up to 10 um except for mentorship of aspirant judges which perhaps v perhaps is a contribution to the development of the law on some interpretation um I don’t understand the rest of it how you would have having the benefit of time when you completed this application. How you would have considered that list and the personal attributes and ability to change the world or inability to change the world. How you an aspirant judge seeking appointment would have understood that list to to to be contribution to the development of the law. and and so I’m concerned about your understanding of the concept of de contribution to development of the law. What do you understand that to be?”
Advocate Meiring attempted to clarify the written submission by citing work surrounding linguistic inclusivity and traditional courts, explaining: “One matter I dealt with in in the papers is about inclusivity and not exclusivity to protect all languages. to ensure that everyone that goes to the court can give testimony for instance in his or her language without feeling that it should be different. That’s why that case was for me important because that’s about inclusivity”.
The commissioner immediately rejected the explanation, pointing out that no such details were actually written in the submitted application papers.
Drawing attention to specific sections of the application, the commissioner noted: “Had you stated that and that be the only um example you gave, I would not be raising this question. Um if if you want you you can look at what you say in 10.3. Look at what you say at uh 10.10. 10.9 is what is expected of every judge. So it has nothing to do with your contribution to the law. 10.8 8 10.7 10.6 6 10.5 and and really the n of my question is what did you understand and it’s a concern that arises having listened to your exchanges with commissioner Phesina, with the deputy minister, with the judge president Tlhotlhalemaje, and commissioner Hassim“.
Responding to the mounting pressure, Advocate Meiring argued: “When if I if I sit on the bench, I have a certain approach. If I’m an attorney in practice, I have a different approach. If I’m busy with an outreach for instance or busy with traditional matters then you do what is required of the situation. If you have to give advice on how to go about with traditional courts and how to approach it and how to handle matters then then I’m not doing it in a certain position. I’m doing it for the sake of correcting the imbalances of the past to taking forward to to have an inclusive approach and there’s new fields of our law to ensure that it’s embraced part of our heritage and is nurtured and then I give that legal advice not from a certain point but to take our country forward and on how to deal with those matters. in a proper forum so that there’s equal treatment by for instance the chief and the person that should be hurt in the traditional court that is one example”.
The hearing took another sharp turn when commissioner Baloyi pressed Advocate Meiring over professional qualifications in constitutional law.
Pointing directly to the candidate’s official questionnaire, commissioner Baloyi noted that Advocate Meiring had indicated zero percent formal practice in constitutional law.
Asking where the panel could find evidence of constitutional jurisprudence, commissioner Baloyi requested specific examples from the candidate’s career.
Advocate Meiring conceded the gap in practice experience while pointing to bench work, stating: “Every foreclosure that I’ve been briefed on or that comes before me as a presiding officer involves constitutional right section 26, the right to housing. Um, if you get an evictionation, those are all matters that you are faced with almost on a daily basis. I make the concession that in my practice as such I did not have a lot of exposure to constitutional work but in the 65 weeks since then that I’ve been acting it it’s almost on a daily basis that something comes across and if you get a more involved matter with constitutional implications you’ll have to deal with that. you do your research, you go to the authorities. Um those instances luckily for me as a junior presiding officer mostly consist of very senior council. So it’s a learning progress but I make the concession that as a practicing practitioner I did not have much exposure there too”.
Copyright: Daily Updates ZA
