Shortlisting for interviews

Appointment of Public Protector

13 July 2016
Chairperson: Dr M Khoza (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The 14 short-listed candidates for interview are:
Judge Sharise Weiner
Judge Sirajudien Desai
Adv Kevin Malunga
Adv Nonkosi Cetywayo
Adv Mhlaliseni Mthembu
Adv Madibeng Mokoditwa
Adv Mamiki Goodman
Adjunct Prof Narnia Bohler-Muller
Prof Bongani Majola
Ms Busisiwe Mkhwebane
Ms Jill Oliphant
Ms Muvhango Lukhaimane
Ms Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh
Mr Willie Hofmeyr

Prior to the shortlisting, the Chairperson noted that public participation in the Public Protector nomination process had been unprecedented with 78 nominations and the CVs released so the public could comment on the 64 candidates that had accepted nomination. These comments were to assist the Committee in making informed decisions.

The criteria for shortlisting came from the Constitution and the Public Protector Act. The qualities to be considered were grouped into four categories: character, experience, knowledge, and skills. Members proposed other qualities that should be considered during shortlisting such as managerial skills, understanding of the developmental state, understanding of the spheres of government and their relationship, financial management skills, leadership skills, and human resource skills.

It was decided that a maximum of ten candidates be shortlisted and South Africa’s non-racial and non-sexist character be recognised. It was agreed that a maximum of a one hour interview per candidate be allowed.

The meeting was adjourned for two hours to allow Members who had not received all the relevant documents, including a completed questionnaire, to go through the documents appropriately. Later, it adjourned again for 30 minutes as some MPs complained they had received an incomplete set of documents.

The Chairperson stated that the vetting of the short-listed candidates would be done through Parliament because the State Security Agency might not report back to the Committee in time.

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks
The Chairperson thanked the public and civil society groups for their participation in the entire process from the start, noting that the public participation received was unparalleled to any other process, and it indicated a growth in South Africa’s democracy. A number of stakeholders were also involved in the process. The Chairperson was invited to attend a conference organized by the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference where a range of stakeholders were invited, and extensive discussions were held on the procedure that should be followed, as well as the qualities that the Public Protector should possess.

The Public Protector nomination process was open to the public, not only to nominate candidates, but to raise objections or comments on the candidates who had been nominated. Most of the comments received so far, centered around the nominees. One of the organizations that had carried out extensive research on the nominees and submitted comments was Corruption Watch.

The Chairperson noted that although the comments submitted by the public and civil society were valued, these comments were not going to be used as the sole basis for shortlisting or disqualifying candidates. The comments would assist the Committee in making informed decisions, as some of the comments would be raised as questions posed by the Committee to specific candidates during their interview if these candidates get shortlisted.

The appointment process would be intense, and the Committee was working towards making the process as perfect as possible. The parliamentary staff had been very helpful in ensuring a smooth running of the process.

Questionnaires had been sent to the various nominees to give them the opportunity to disclose any information that may impact on the decision of the Committee. It would serve as a good means test in meeting the ‘fit and proper’ requirement. The questionnaires would aid the Committee in shortlisting.
Apologies were made to Committee members who had not yet received all the completed questionnaires.

The Chairperson said a presentation on the selection criteria would be given by one of the parliamentary staff, which would highlight five broad thematic areas under which the selection criteria fell. She said that 73 written nominations were received by the Committee. The non-written nominations were automatically disqualified, otherwise, the nominations received would have been close to 100. Those nominated candidates who declined the nomination, were removed from the list. This led to a total of 59 candidates and their names were published on the parliamentary website. It was discovered that some candidates for which written nominations had been submitted, and who had accepted nomination, did not find their name on the published list. This led to the addition of five names to the list of 59 nominees, resulting in a total of 64 nominees.

The CVs of all 64 candidates had been sent to Committee members, and these would serve as the most important document that would be used for shortlisting. Public comments and questionnaires would also be taken into account. The Chairperson pointed out that candidates would not be disqualified based on allegations raised through these public comments.

Some of the candidates declined their nominations, while some others withdrew from the process. These candidates include: Mr Nicholas Haysom (declined his nomination); Mr Malcom John Siphwe Nhleko (withdrew from the process); Mr Themba Phillip Mthethwa (withdrew from the process).

Mr Solo Makhonjwa sent his nomination earlier but it was only received after the closing date. Some nominations were received before the closing date but the supporting documentation and letter of acceptance of such nominations were received only after the closing date. The same situation applied to Ms Melanie Bernard-Fryer, Adv Zwelethu Madasa, and Mr Bongani Majola. The Chairperson asked the Committee to give their views on whether these candidates should be considered.

Ms M Mothapo (ANC) said that the Committee should accept such nominations.

Adoption of the agenda
Mr N Masondo (ANC) reminded the Chairperson of the need to formally adopt the agenda, before dealing with the various issues arising from the agenda.

Mr S Swart (ACDP) noted that the emphasis of the Chairperson’s opening remarks had been public participation. Based on that, he noted that not all the documentation needed for participation and for the shortlisting of the candidates had been received by all members of the Committee. Some members were yet to receive the questionnaires and public comments for some candidates. These public submissions were very important before deliberations on shortlisting of candidates could go on. He said that it would be a serious concern if all members of the ANC had received the documents.

The Chairperson replied that members would receive all the documents, as the Committee staff were busy printing out other public submissions apart from the submission from Corruption Watch, which had been sent earlier. She noted that the last comment made by Mr Swart was a serious insinuation, which should be withdrawn. The Committee staff were responsible for the distribution of documents, and not the Chairperson. She noted that she did not also receive the documents that the Committee secretary left in her pigeon hole. She was therefore left with the option of going through the documents sent electronically, before the meeting commenced.

Mr Swart replied that he did not intend to cast aspersions on the ANC through his comment. In fact, since the Chairperson said she also did not receive the documents, this buttressed the fact that all members were struggling to obtain the relevant documentation to help with preparations. He apologised and withdrew his comment, to the extent that such comment was perceived as casting aspersions on the ANC.

Mr J Selfe (DA) said that he had not received all the documents. He suggested that proceeding with the shortlisting without the questionnaires and without a proper consideration of the public comments made on the nominees, might result in a disservice to the entire appointment process. The Constitutional Court already dealt with the importance of public participation in the Doctors for Life case. It was therefore necessary to take the public comments into proper account in order to give the public a meaningful opportunity to participate in the process.

Mr B Bongo (ANC) said that the agenda should be adopted as presented, since he had received the public comments and had been served with copies of the CVs two weeks before, giving them enough time to go through the CVs. He suggested that the Act should be used for the purpose of shortlisting, especially since it was not all comments submitted by the public that would be taken into account for shortlisting the candidates.

Mr Masondo agreed that the agenda should be adopted. He noted that there was ample space to deal with the issues being raised by Members, after the agenda had been adopted.

Mr S Mncwabe (NFP) said he was yet to receive all the documents. He proposed that the Committee should deliberate on whether it would deal with the shortlisting or put it on hold since some of the documents were still being printed and yet to be distributed, while other issues on the agenda could be discussed.  

The Chairperson proposed that item 3 on the agenda should be deferred till the last item before the announcements. This would enable all members that had yet to receive some documents, to receive such documents and peruse them appropriately.

She noted that the public comments received were only about Mr Dali Mpofu SC, Adv Loyiso Khanyisa Bunye Mpumlwana, Mr Phillip Dexter, Mr Krish Naidoo, Judge Sirajudien Desai, Prof Alexander Mzamo Gumbi, Ms Muvhango Lukhaimane, Mr Rayond Edward Chalom, Adv Nonkosi Princess Cetywayo, and Adv Hishaam Mohamed. The comments from Corruption Watch were set aside, because all members had received them. The other matters on the agenda would therefore be considered, pending the time all members had received all relevant documents to assist in their making informed decisions on the candidates to be shortlisted.

Adv G Breytenbach (DA) said that the Constitution was clear on the requirement that the Public Protector be a South African citizen who is a fit and proper person to hold such office. Without a proper consideration of the public comments, as well as a proper research conducted by members of the Committee on each candidate, the Committee would not be able to decide if any of the candidates is a fit and proper person. Being a fit and proper person was an extremely important characteristic of the Public Protector. The public had every right to ensure that the Committee complied with the Constitution.

The Chairperson reiterated the importance of public participation in this process, noting that all members of the Committee recognized this fact. She however re-proposed that the shortlisting process on the agenda be deferred till all other matters on the agenda had been addressed.

On that note, the agenda was adopted.

Criteria for shortlisting
Ms Christine Silkstone, Committee Content Adviser, made a short presentation on the selection criteria. The deadline for the completion of the process had been set for 31 August 2016. The Committee had met twice and agreed to public participation in the process; after which public comments had been received.

The essential qualifications of the Public Protector were already provided for in Section 193 of the Constitution and Section 1A of the Public Protector Act. The Constitution stated the need for the Public Protector to be a South African citizen; a fit and proper person to hold the office; and to comply with any other requirements prescribed by national legislation. In Section 1A(3) of the Act, the qualifications for a Public Protector must be:
- is a judge of a high court; or
- is admitted as an advocate or an attorney and has, for a cumulative period of at least 10 years after having been so admitted, practised as an advocate or an attorney; or
- is qualified to be admitted as an advocate or an attorney and has, for a cumulative period of at least 10 years after having so qualified, lectured in law at a university; or
- has specialised knowledge of or experience, for a cumulative period of at least 10 years, in the administration of justice, public administration or public finance; or
- has, for a cumulative period of at least 10 years, been a member of Parliament; or
- has acquired any combination of experience mentioned in paragraphs (1) to (5) for a cumulative period of at least 10 years.

At the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference seminar that held two weeks before, a survey conducted by Corruption Watch was distributed. The survey was carried out on 83 members of staff of the Public Protector South Africa (PPSA). The result showed that being a judge was viewed as the most important qualification to have; followed by being an admitted attorney or advocate with a minimum of ten years’ experience and practice. The survey was also completed by 23 Members of Parliament who believed that having a minimum of ten years’ experience in the administration of justice, public administration or public finance, was considered to be the most important qualification. This qualification was followed by being an admitted advocate or attorney, with a minimum of ten years’ experience and practice. Both sets of respondents regarded the qualification of being an MP as the least important qualification.

The parliamentary team working on the process came up with other non-formal qualifications that would be expected of the Public Protector. These qualities were drawn from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) process, surveys, and case law. The qualities included whether the candidate was a person of integrity; displayed the necessary professional motivation; possessed technical experience with regard to the values and needs of the society; and whether the candidate was a technically competent person with the capacity to give expression to the values of the Constitution.

Some of the descriptive words used by the courts for the Public Protector include:
- Independent;
- Impartial;
- Capable of exercising powers without fear, favour or prejudice (culled directly from the Constitution);
- Courageous;
- Vigilant;
- Has conviction of purpose;
- Not a passive adjudicator between citizens;
- Has a proactive function;
- Has an opening and enquiring mind;
- Is dignified;
- Beyond reproach;
- A person of stature;
- Suitably qualified; and an anti-corruption champion.

Based on all these qualities, four main themes were drawn up to be considered in the selection criteria: ‘character’, ‘experience’, ‘knowledge’, and ‘skills’. Under the ‘character’ requirement, qualities for consideration would be whether the candidate was independent-minded; impartial; had the ability to perform functions without fear, favour or prejudice; was a person of integrity; honest; passionate; and displayed public commitment to South Africa. In terms of ‘experience’, legal experience, investigative experience, knowledge of public institutions and public finance, were some of the qualities that would be considered.
As for ‘knowledge’, qualities would include having a knowledge of good governance; an understanding of the social justice system; current with the happenings in society; knowledge of the Constitution; knowledge of investigations, and public finance. In terms of ‘skills’, a candidate with leadership skills; a vision; the ability to communicate with the staff and external stakeholders; investigative and analytical skills; and conflict resolution skills, would be considered.

As for shortlisting procedure, no formal guidelines had been put in place and used in previous processes. The Committee, therefore, had to come up with its own guidelines to be used for the shortlisting process.

As a recap, it was noted that 78 applications were received for nominations, out of which 17 declined, withdrew, or could not be contacted to confirm nomination. After the nominations were captured, questionnaires were circulated to the candidates.

The other matters to be dealt with for the shortlisting process included discussion of the public comments received, as well as the candidates’ questionnaires; the number of candidates that the Committee would shortlist; and how the actual selection process would take place.

Mr Bongo added that candidates should demonstrate a high level of legal experience; display managerial skills; display a clear understanding of a developmental state; must understand the spheres of government, as well as the relationship amongst the spheres; and should demonstrate financial management skills. He proposed that all shortlisted candidates should prepare a 20-minute presentation through which the members of the Committee could test all the needed skills and qualities. MPs could afterwards engage with the candidates for 25 minutes.

The Chairperson noted that Mr Bongo was already making suggestions for the actual modalities of the interview. She proposed that this should be deferred until the selection criteria had been discussed.

Mr Swart pointed out that one of the challenges faced when going through the CVs, was the fact that although most of the candidates indicated that they were either advocates or attorneys, but there was no record of actual practice in such professional capacities. It was therefore, important to have sufficient information for the selection criteria, to confirm whether the candidates were admitted as advocates or attorneys, whether they practiced in such professional capacities, or were just calling themselves advocates or attorneys. This would require using the criteria set out in Section 1A (b) of the Act even though the Act refers to “with cumulative experience of administration of justice or public administration” without necessarily practicing as an advocate. The Committee would therefore, need to carefully consider these criteria to ensure that the candidates complied with the statutory requirements.

Mr Selfe referred to the criteria of ‘character’, under which the qualities of independence, impartial, ability to perform functions without fear, favour, or prejudice, fell. He noted that the qualities were important, but more importantly, was the manner in which a person could be perceived to hold such qualities; which was referred to in court as reasonable apprehension of bias. It was therefore, necessary to ensure that candidates that were to be selected did not only display independence and impartiality, but also that such candidates were reasonably perceived to be unbiased in all areas, in order to maintain and uphold the reputation of the Public Protector as being an impartial arbiter that was dedicated to fighting corruption and maladministration.

Ms Breytenbach said that it would be helpful for the Committee to get documentary proof of candidates’ admittance as advocates or attorneys in good standing.

Ms Mothapo said that the nominees should meet the statutory requirements, as well as the other requirements listed out by content advisor. In terms of the candidates being advocates and attorneys of good standing, it was noted that most candidates attached letters of good standing from their various law societies and the Bar, with their CVs. Other factors that should be considered include representation in terms of gender and South African demographics. Public comments should also be considered, as provided for by Section 193(c) and 59(1) of the Constitution.

The Chairperson said that the various requirements should be placed under four broad categories, which would be ‘knowledge’ (understanding of the law); ‘skills’ (having excellent forensic investigative and communication skills); ‘experience’; and moral values/rationality test (the fit and proper test).
These four broad categories would assist MPs in their motivation for a candidate to be shortlisted.

Mr Swart said that management skills should be included in one of the broad categories of requirements for shortlisting the candidates.

The Chairperson agreed that management skills were important. Human resource (HR) skills was similarly important and should be included in the broad categories. It was however, important to find means of strengthening provincial offices, to ensure provincial offices recognised the importance of having HR skills.

Mr Masondo noted that leadership skills were also important, and should be included in the requirements for shortlisting.

Dr P Maesela (ANC) said that additional criteria should not be added to the criteria already provided for.

The Chairperson agreed but noted that the starting point for the usage of criteria should be the criteria provided for by the legislation, since there may be more than enough candidates that would meet the criteria already discussed above.

Number of candidates to be shortlisted
The Chairperson said that it was important to reflect South Africa’s non-racial and non-sexist character in considering the number of candidates to be shortlisted.

Ms G Tseke (ANC) agreed with the Chairperson on the character of South Africa as being non-racial and non-sexist. She said that gender and demographics had been raised by Ms Mothapo, and she felt those requirements had been duly noted.

Mr N Koornhof (ANC) suggested that the Committee should try to conduct the interviews for the candidates in one day because of the number of candidates to be considered, and also to ensure that the candidates were not given the opportunity to watch their fellow colleagues being interviewed. The Committee should bear in mind that it might spend between 45 minutes and one hour on each candidate. He suggested that the Committee should shortlist ten candidates.

Mr Mncwabe agreed with Mr Koornhof on the grounds that the number of people contesting was numerous, and also the questions posed to the candidates might be numerous.

The Chairperson said that it was necessary for the Committee to agree on a time allocation for each candidate to make their presentation before the Committee. The agreed time allocation per candidate would inform the decision on the number of candidates to be shortlisted.

Mr Bongo supported the suggestion for the shortlisting of a maximum of ten candidates, with each candidate being allocated 45 minutes. The 45 minutes per candidate should be divided into 20 minutes for the candidate to present his/her case and 25 minutes for the Committee to engage with the candidate.

The Chairperson said that the candidates would be informed of the need to speak on the four broad selection requirements, as already discussed above.

Mr Swart said that the time allocated for candidates to make their presentation should be short, while a longer time should be set aside for the Committee’s engagement with each candidate. He suggested that each candidate be given ten minutes to present. The most important part was the Committee engaging with every candidate. He wanted to know what necessitated the suggestion of ten candidates for shortlisting, especially since the Committee could decide not to limit itself to one day for conducting interviews.

The Chairperson said that the reason for the one-day proposition for conducting interviews was to ensure that no candidate had a competitive advantage over another. In essence, candidates scheduled for other days for interview would find out the type of questions that was asked, and could be better prepared for their own interview. This would therefore affect the number of candidates that should be shortlisted for interview. It was also important for candidates to feel that the process was free and fair for all. She agreed that all candidates be allocated the same amount of time for their presentation. Committee members should be prepared to stay late on that day to ensure that all interviews were conducted on the same day.

Mr Bongo said that ten minutes may be inadequate to test the four broad selection criteria requirements already discussed. He suggested that each candidate be allocated 20 minutes for presentation.

Ms Breytenbach also said that ten minutes was sufficient for each candidate to make their presentation. The most important part of the interview would be the Committee’s engagement with candidates.

The Chairperson said that candidates would be allocated a maximum of 15 minutes to make their presentations, and this would be clearly communicated to all candidates. Ms Silkstone had been asked to assist MPs with four thematic areas from which questions would be posed to each candidate, so that MPs could prepare their questions ahead of time for the interviews.

Mr Swart asked if the total time to be spent on each candidate was 45 minutes or one hour.

Mr Selfe said that the time for questioning would most likely vary between candidates. However, he agreed to the suggestion to cap the time allocated. He also suggested that the answers provided by candidates should be capped to avoid candidates staying too long on a particular answer. He suggested that the time allocated to each question should be limited to two to three minutes.

The Chairperson said that these modalities would be looked into and clearly communicated to candidates. She ruled that the maximum time spent on each candidate would be one hour.

Mr Maesela said that 45 minutes was adequate.

Mr Koornhof also agreed with the Chairperson’s ruling. He said that the Chairperson would have to use her discretion to cap the replies given to questions, and also cap the time spent by MPs in asking questions. There should be rules governing the interview session.

Date of interview
The Chairperson proposed that the interviews be conducted on 11 August 2016. The suggested date was a result of deliberations between the Chairperson and administration. She noted that the Women’s Day celebration was on 9 August 2016, and most female parliamentarians would be participating in a range of activities on Women’s Day.

Members agreed to the date proposed.

The Chairperson proposed an adjournment of the meeting till 14h00, to allow members go through the public comments and other documents to be used for the shortlisting. The shortlisting process would then take place at 14h00.

Mr Selfe asked if there were completed questionnaires for every candidate.

The Chairperson replied that candidates were informed of the need to respond to the questionnaires, and failure to do so would result in an automatic disqualification. The closing date for the submission of questionnaires was 8 July 2016. At the moment, the Committee had received 56 questionnaires.

Mr Selfe said that some candidates had submitted a more detailed questionnaire than their CVs. He wanted to know if MPs would receive all 56 questionnaires for perusal, and if there would be enough time to go through the questionnaires carefully before the suggested time for reconvening.

The Chairperson said that CVs of all candidates had been sent to MPs ahead of time, so that MPs could go through and carry out their own due diligence on the CVs. Public comments were also published on the parliamentary website, and it was expected that MPs keep track of the comments as they were published.

Prof C Msimang (IFP) brought to the attention of the Chairperson the time for the last flight to Durban for those that would be traveling back. This meant that some members could asked to be excused if the process did not end on time.

The Chairperson said that she had requested the secretariat to appeal to MPs to allocate the entire day for the shortlisting process. The Committee Secretary said that he communicated this to all members.

[The Committee reconvened at 14:00]

The Chairperson addressed the vetting of shortlisted candidates and pointed out that the Committee did not have much control over the State Security Agency (SSA). Another technical area of concern was that Chapter 9 institutions were appointed strictly through a parliamentary process and there was some consideration about whether the Committee should do the actual vetting. This would probably have financial implications and appointments would need to be made. Ultimately, there was an undertaking that Parliament would be vetting the shortlisted candidates. It had previously been stated that the SSA would be doing this, but there had been a lot of concerns about this such as what if the SSA do not come back to us in time, we do not have control over them and we might end up reaching the stage where the person has to the appointed with no vetting done.

The Chairperson clarified that some nominees or applicants either withdrew or did not return the questionnaire. The Committee was now left with 56 names to consider for the shortlisting.

The Chairperson said the Committee agreed to focus on four thematic areas: the character of the nominee or applicant, their experience, knowledge and skills. These thematic areas were used over and above the minimum requirements which are prescribed in law, and it was important for the Committee to understand other attributes a candidate possesses so as to determine whether they are ‘a fit and proper person’ for this position.

Mr Swart complained that the documents were only given to them before the start of the meeting and that they were incomplete. To get the documents just before the meeting was unfair and the Committee needed to adjourn for an hour so that Members could go through them. He understood the time constraints and the Committee should have agreed before it adjourned that documents would be made available to Members during the lunch break.

Adv Breytenbach added that some questionnaires were received five minutes before the meeting started. She was not in possession of some CVs and had gotten hold of others 8 days ago. She asked the Committee to give Members enough time to go through the documents thoroughly.

Mr Selfe stated that Members had received some electronic copies but not all of them.

Mr Bongo stated that the opposition should not bring excuses that were baseless. The documents existed on Parliament’s website and were sent to Members three weeks ago and via their iPads the night before.

The Chairperson said Members should get used to electronic copies. Hard copies serve as a back-up. It was immaterial whether one got a CV three weeks ago or on the day of the meeting, and people were trying to find fault with the process. Members had a duty to verify information sent to them via the parliamentary website. Corruption Watch would not have been able to comment had it not verified information via the parliamentary website. The public participation process must not be used wrongly, and it was important not to discredit the process for narrow political gains. Members were supposed to go to the Committee Secretary and ask for documents.

Mr Masondo stated that the Committee should find a compromise to enable the process to move forward. Most Members had received the majority of documents, and where there were gaps, the information should be made available to Members. The process must not stop.

The Chairperson suggested that the Committee should adjourn for 30 minutes to ensure all Members received all the documents.

[The Committee reconvened after 30 minutes]

Members agreed that the questionnaire be used for short-listing to select suitable candidates, but it should not be used to disqualify candidates for not filling in the questionnaire because there are many reasons that could be put forward for not submitting it or filling it in.

Short-listing of candidates:
Mr Bongo proposed the names of Judge Desai and Justice Weiner.

Mr Selfe objected to Judge Desai, motivating that the Committee should consider reasonable bias. Judge Desai had participated in many controversial Commissions of Inquiries and handed down many political judgements. In addition, he had a history of giving out written judgements after a judgement had been delivered, and was not in good health. He must be given time to recover.

Mr Bongo said Mr Selfe was voicing personal problems he had with Judge Desai. There was a procedure in place to deal with late judgements. This was not the right platform to raise those issues and health matters because he had accepted the nomination. If the Committee agreed to nominate him, he would be asked about the issues raised by Mr Selfe.

The Chairperson said Judge Desai would not be a sitting judge if he had a health problem. People could not be disqualified on the basis of their health. The DA was insensitive by raising the issue of health for disqualification.

Mr Swart suggested the name of Adv Malunga, the current Deputy Public Protector.

Adv Breytenbach proposed the names of Professor Bohler-Muller, Ms Oliphant, Ms Ramjathan-Keogh, Adv Lukhaimane, and Adv Majola

Ms Mothapo suggested the name of Adv Mamiki Goodman.

Prof C Msimang (IFP) nominated Ms Busisiwe Mkhwebane.

Mr Mncwabe nominated Adv Michael Mthembu.

Mr N Koornhof (ANC) proposed the name of Adv William Hofmeyr.

Ms Tseke suggested the name of Adv Cetywayo

Mr Masondo nominated Adv Mokoditwa.

The 14 short-listed candidates were as follows:

Judge Sharise Weiner
Judge Sirajudien Desai
Adv Kevin Malunga
Adv Nonkosi Cetywayo
Adv Mhlaliseni Mthembu
Adv Madibeng Mokoditwa
Adv Mamiki Goodman
Adjunct Prof Narnia Bohler-Muller
Prof Bongani Majola
Ms Busisiwe Mkhwebane
Ms Jill Oliphant
Ms Muvhango Lukhaimane
Ms Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh
Mr Willie Hofmeyer

The Committee expressed satisfaction about the number of female candidates short-listed. The Committee said the eight females were there to give effect to the gender sensitivity principle of our constitutional democracy, and that they meet the minimum requirements and criteria.

The minutes of 01 June 2016 were considered and adopted with amendment.

The meeting was adjourned.

[Completed Questionnaires by nominees/applicants not made available to public]

Share this page: