EFF accuses Helen Suzman Foundation of trying to silence Malema over JSC role

Party says litigation redefines criticism as misconduct

The application, filed in the Western Cape High Court, asks the court to find that public criticism of judges and judicial decisions can render an elected representative unfit to serve on the JSC. The EFF argues the case is a “dangerous and dishonest attempt to redefine democratic criticism as constitutional misconduct” and says it would exclude Members of Parliament who criticise the judiciary from oversight roles.

EFF response and core objections

EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said the application’s implication is that elected representatives with critical views of the judiciary should be excluded from oversight roles, calling the approach “fundamentally anti-democratic” and saying it seeks to impose “an artificial culture of silence around institutions that exercise immense political and constitutional power.”

“The EFF rejects the myth that the judiciary exists above criticism,”

Thambo added that judges “are not beyond scrutiny” and insisted that judicial conduct must remain open to public debate.

What the Helen Suzman Foundation seeks

At the centre of the foundation’s case is an argument that the Judicial Service Commission Act is constitutionally deficient because it lacks adequate mechanisms to regulate commissioners’ conduct. The organisation is reportedly seeking the introduction of a binding code of conduct with punitive sanctions, an interim order compelling the JSC to adopt and enforce such a code, and directions for Parliament to amend the legislation. It also seeks declarations that parts of the Act are constitutionally invalid.

EFF rejects courts reshaping Parliament

The EFF rejected those demands as judicial overreach and an attempt to transfer parliamentary powers to the courts, arguing this would allow “unelected institutions reshape constitutional structures through litigation” and undermine separation of powers. The party said criticism of judicial conduct should be treated as democratic accountability, not an attack on the Constitution.

Broader political context raised by EFF

The party linked the litigation to wider political debates, saying elements of the judiciary and prosecutorial authorities have at times failed to hold political leaders consistently accountable. The EFF referenced the Phala Phala matter and listed a series of allegations tied to President Cyril Ramaphosa that it said had not led to adequate accountability.

Calling the foundation inconsistent, the EFF said the organisation remained silent on the Phala Phala matter while moving urgently to court in this case, a pattern the party described as “selective constitutional activism.”

Party vows to continue challenging institutions

The EFF said it would not be intimidated by what it described as liberal pressure groups defending political and economic elites, and that it would continue to expose corruption, challenge perceived judicial inconsistency, and defend the right of South Africans to criticise institutions of power, including the judiciary.