Chairperson, financial security is crucial for judicial independence. As a consequence, an independent commission is responsible for determining the remuneration of judges and magistrates. It is worth noting that in 2002 the then Chief Justice, Arthur Chaskalson, in the Van Rooyen judgment stated, and I quote:
Judicial officers ought not to be put in a position of having to do this or to engage in negotiations with the executive over their salaries.
Justice Chaskalson then went further and said, and I quote:
They are judicial officers, not employees, and cannot and should not resort to industrial action to advance their interests in their conditions of service.
On 26 July 2013, the independent commission recommended a 5,5% across-the- board inflation-related increase for all public office bearers, namely judges, traditional leaders, magistrates and elected political representatives, such as we ourselves, with effect from 1 April 2012. The President made his determination, giving effect to the independent commission's recommendations, which he tabled on 20 August 2012.
It must be noted that the Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa, Armsa, challenged the 2011 determination, which they took on review. This matter has gone as far as the Constitutional Court, whose judgment on the matter is pending.
The Justice committee has met and engaged with the Lower Court Remuneration Committee, the LCRC, a body set up by the Chief Justice and the Magistrates Commission. It had also met the Judicial Officers Association of SA, Joasa, and the Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa, Armsa.
Both Joasa and Armsa took issue with the process followed by the independent commission and its allegedly inadequate consultation in reaching its determination. These two organisations requested that the portfolio committee intervene on their behalf with the independent commission. It must be noted that the portfolio committee's role in this matter is limited to approving in whole or in part or rejecting the President's recommendation. The portfolio committee is in no position to, nor would it be appropriate to, interrogate the recommendations of the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers. The portfolio committee also takes a dim view of threats from certain quarters of the magistracy to embark on illegal industrial action, including a go- slow.
We wish to make the point that magistrates, being who they are, ought to know the importance of following due process. And their relief for this matter lies not with the portfolio committee, but with the courts. We take this opportunity to appeal to them to rethink their position on this matter.
For now, therefore, the portfolio committee is convinced that we must ensure that the inflation-related increase of 5,5% for magistrates takes effect. Accordingly, we recommend that this House approves the Draft Notice and Schedule submitted in terms of section 12(3) of the Magistrates Act, Act 90 of 1993, determining the rate at which salaries are payable to magistrates annually with effect from 1 April 2013. Essentially we are asking you to approve the 5,5% recommended by the President. Thank you.
There was no debate.
Question put: That the Draft Notice and Schedule determining the rate at which salaries are payable to magistrates annually, with effect from 1 April 2012, and the report of the portfolio committee thereon be approved.
Question agreed to.
Draft Notice and Schedule determining the rate at which salaries are payable to magistrates annually, with effect from 1 April 2012, approved and the report of the portfolio committee thereon accordingly adopted.