[There were some Blacks who said the nastiest things about the white Judge in the Shabir Shaik trial. That called him an “Apartheid Judge”, etc when the man was just doing his job. Disgusting. Jan]

Race-based criticism of Judge Hillary Squires at the weekend was not warranted, the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) said on Monday.

African National Congress Youth League president Fikile Mbalula at the weekend called Judge Squires an “apartheid judge”, while the Young Communist League (YCL) accused him of being a racist because he allegedly dragged Deputy President Jacob Zuma’s name through the mud in a 160-odd page judgement finding Durban businessman Schabir Shaik guilty of fraud and corruption.

“Did we expect anything else from the judge? He is a cynical, mad person who is still raw because his apartheid existence came to an end. We will never judge our leaders according to the standards of an apartheid judge,” YCL national director Buti Manamela said on Sunday.

On Monday, newspaper columnist David Gleason pointed out Judge Squires had been a member of Ian Smith’s Rhodesian Parliament and had “successively been a minister of justice and then of defence in what was, unless memory serves me poorly, an illegal and repressive regime”.

In reaction, the SAHRC said it has no doubt that the judgement, delivered by Judge Squires with the concurrence of two assessors in Durban last week, will be long discussed.

“There are differing responses to the judgement, and while some regard it as painstakingly thorough and a correct conclusion based on the evidence before the court, others will take issue with it for other reasons. This is the essence of living in a constitutional democracy, which has room for vibrant and robust discussion,” the human rights watchdog said in a statement.

“However, it must be a cause for concern when the judge comes under attack purely on account of his race or origins and the judgement is rejected purely on account of this.

“Our judiciary is undergoing a process of transformation and few will argue that the current demography of our Bench adequately represents who we are as a nation — there is consensus that much work still needs to be done on that front.

“However, it is simply unacceptable when race is used, in the manner in which it has been in this instance, to cast doubt on the work of the court,” the commission warned.

“The right of freedom of expression is constitutionally enshrined — as is the independence of the judiciary — and while the Human Rights Commission endorses the view that free expression is vital in a robust democracy, we think that those who rely on this right also have a duty to engage in such expression with some responsibility.

“Arguing that a judge is biased purely on account of his race or origins is unacceptable; considered arguments demonstrating how the judge’s race or origins unduly influenced his conclusions are another matter, and would be acceptable — this has not been done in this instance.

“In the present case, the criticism that is directed towards Mr Justice Squires is purely on account of his race, is unfortunate and certainly mars what has been a transparent and very public criminal trial.

“We add our voice to the various calls that the debate in the aftermath of this trail should be conducted soberly and responsibly,” the commission said in a statement issued in the name of its chairperson, Jody Kollapen. — Sapa

Source: Daily Mail & Guardian
URL: http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/br…/p>