Judicial Reforms
Bongani Hans|Published 18 hours ago
The release of the 2026 Judiciary Conference’s resolutions that magistrates should migrate to the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) has been welcomed, as stakeholders feel that, under the Department of Justice (DoJ), magistrates are not completely independent of the Cabinet.
Currently, magistrates report to the DoJ, which provides them with administrative support, budgets, and staffing. They have been complaining about inferior treatment compared to judges.
During their conference held in Durban between Monday and Thursday, the officers resolved that there should be a speedy creation of a single judiciary system in which magistrates would join judges in reporting directly to the OCJ.
The recommendations were first adopted by the 2023 conference.
Judges Action Group (JAG) welcomed the resolution, saying this would enhance institutional independence.
JAG coordinator Rohan Roopnarian said although magistrates exercise their authority under Section 165 of the Constitution, they are still dependent on DoJ administrative support, budgets, staffing, and many employment matters.
“This creates the perception that magistrates are part of the public service rather than an independent branch of government,” said Roopnarian.
Section 165 states that courts have judicial power to function entirely independently and must apply the law impartially, without fear, favour, or prejudice.
According to JAG, magistrate court buildings lack maintenance, court rooms, and magistrates’ offices have no air-conditioners and libraries are outdated while the Information Technology (IT) system is “useless”.
“This hampers our ability to conduct research, and we literally have to beg the DoJ for anything we require,” Roopnarian said.
A few months ago, magistrates in some parts of the country picketed against their working conditions and remuneration, and raised concerns about being deprived of benefits enjoyed by their senior colleagues, such as official vehicles, petrol cards, tax rebates, spousal benefits, travel, housing, entertainment, and medical aid.
Roopnarian said if magistrates were moved to the OCJ, they would reasonably expect to enjoy “greater” judicial independence, have improved research support, better judicial training, greater input into court administration, access to judicial Information and Communications Technology systems, and more consistent judicial governance support services.
However, JAG is not optimistic that moving magistrates to the OCJ would automatically improve their salaries and give them benefits similar to those of judges because “those matters are governed by different constitutional and legislative frameworks”.
Magistrates expect that under a single judiciary system, all judicial officers would enjoy the same salary scales, pension benefits, medical aid arrangements, leave benefits, vehicle allowances, housing, and relocation benefits.
JAG said moving magistrates to the same stable as judges would require amendments to the Magistrates Act and possible amendments to the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act or the creation of new legislation covering all judicial officers.
“Establishment of an independent remuneration commission for the judiciary (as contemplated in Resolution 2.1 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference), reform of pension and medical aid arrangements, decisions on security of tenure, and other conditions of service,” said Roopnarian.
Resolution 2.1 states that the salaries, allowances, and benefits of judicial officers should be dealt with through an independent statutory body specifically suited to the constitutional position of the judiciary.
“The judiciary should continue engagement with the Executive on the establishment of such a body,” read the resolution.
Roopnarian said magistrates would potentially benefit under a genuinely single judiciary in which all judicial officers are governed under a unified constitutional and legislative framework.
“However, the current draft does not expressly provide that magistrates will receive the same remuneration and benefits as judges. That would require additional policy decisions and legislative changes beyond the transfer itself,” he said.
DoJ spokesperson Palesa Rammitlwa has not responded despite acknowledging questions sent to her on Friday.
Judicial Officers Alliance of South Africa (JASA) President Neelan Karikan said moving the magistrates from the DoJ would strengthen judicial independence.
“Integration under the Chief Justice would foster unified governance, norms, and standards across all courts.
“Enhance accountability mechanisms while protecting judicial officers from undue external influence and improving resource allocation, training, and operational efficiency, directly benefiting the thousands of cases magistrates handle daily,” said Karikan.
He said this possible reform aligns with JASA’s longstanding advocacy for systemic change.
“The transition represents a progressive step toward a judiciary-led administration model that better serves the public by bringing justice closer to communities,” he said.
JASA is unhappy with the decision to place entry-level magistrates’ annual salaries at approximately R1.2 million and senior magistrates’ between R1.3 million and R1.7 million per annum while working under demanding conditions, including managing high caseloads in often under-resourced courts.
Karikan said magistrates deal with criminal, civil, family, and regional matters. “Benefits typically include pension contributions, medical aid subsidies, and limited allowances, but these fall short of those enjoyed by superior court judges,” he said.
In the resolution, which Deputy Chief Justice Dunstan Mlambo read during a media briefing on Thursday afternoon, judicial officers want the issue of their salaries, allowances, and benefits to be dealt with through an independent statutory body specifically suited to the constitutional position of the judiciary.
The “judiciary should continue engagement with the Executive on the establishment of such a body,” read the resolutions.
Judicial officers also called for the modernisation of their operations, including being equipped with artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance access to justice.
They said to mitigate the risk of AI in justice administration, its development and use must be governed by the judiciary “to safeguard judicial independence, constitutional values, and public confidence”.
They have called for the Judiciary Administration and Information Technology Steering Committee to finalise the Draft Policy on AI.
“The Draft AI Policy should clearly define the distinction between administrative and adjudicative functions by articulating, with greater specificity, the permissible and prohibited uses of AI, to safeguard confidentiality, the integrity of the administration of justice, and provide certainty to judicial officers.
“The judiciary should retain ownership and governance over the development, procurement and use of AI systems to ensure that human oversight, judicial reasoning and judicial determination remain central to their use, and that training data and data inputs reflect South Africa’s constitutional values and transformative jurisprudence,” read the resolution.