A bold claim by Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema has stirred significant online discourse, as he accused the Gauteng Division of the High Court of systematically assigning all Democratic Alliance (DA)-related cases to white judges. Malema’s tweet also alleged that some of these judges, including acting judges, had previous ties to the DA.
“The Gauteng Division of High Court has an unbroken policy of assigning all DA cases to white judges. Included in this category are acting judges who have served as prosecutors’ solicitors before. This disturbing trend must be taken seriously,” Malema tweeted.
The claim has drawn both criticism and support. Detractors argue that Malema is politicizing the judiciary, while supporters echo his concerns about the lack of diversity and potential bias in the legal system.
Legal experts have weighed in, emphasizing that judicial assignments should follow a transparent, rotational system or administrative guidelines to ensure fairness and impartiality. Malema’s allegations have reignited broader discussions about the need for transformation within South Africa’s judiciary and whether structural reforms are necessary to address perceived inequities.
The Democratic Alliance has yet to officially respond to the accusations. However, the allegations have further strained relations among South Africa’s major political parties, highlighting ongoing tensions in the country’s democratic landscape.
This controversy raises critical questions about public trust in the judiciary. As the debate unfolds, it may prompt closer scrutiny of the processes for selecting judges and allocating cases—issues that could shape future efforts to enhance transparency and equity within South Africa’s legal system.
