Judiciary budgetary constraints, shortage of judges and backlogs ‘unacceptable'
The Gauteng High Court is in a state of crisis, with the earliest trial dates not available until 2030.
Budgetary constraints have led to a shortage of judges in South Africa, with the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) unable to provide the judiciary with the much-needed support.
On Wednesday, the OCJ briefed the portfolio committee on justice and constitutional development on its annual performance plan and budget.
The OCJ was allocated a total budget of R2.607 billion (2024/25), of which R1.333 billion was allocated to the Direct Charge for judges' remuneration and benefits.
ALSO READ: MK party demands answers: Why are some judges living lavish lifestyles?
During the financial year, it spent 108% of its budget. The National Treasury has allocated an additional budget, ensuring that the OCJ is adequately capacitated to enhance support for the judiciary.
The OCJ informed the committee of the shortage of law researchers.
'The ratio of law researchers to judges is currently not acceptable. But thanks to the budget injection, we have managed to reprioritise funds so that we can create additional law researchers for our Supreme Court of Appeal. The ratio will then be two judges per researcher. The ideal is one-on-one,' said acting secretary-general of the OCJ, Advocate Marelize Potgieter.
Shortage of judges 'unacceptable'
African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) member Steven Swart lamented the shortage of judges, which results in people waiting years for their trial dates.
'What I need to emphasise is the fact of the budgetary constraints, and while there was an additional funding given to the office of the chief justice, it's still nowhere near the requirements,' said Swart.
ALSO READ: Judges urge President Ramaphosa to reconsider salary increase snub
'According to the most recent budget speech by the finance minister, he identifies spending pressures that may require funding later this year, including strengthening the capabilities of the Office of the Chief Justice.
'Additional funds were given, but not sufficient as is required when considering we have done oversight on the shocking state of the buildings, at a high court level and [magistrate court] level. This places a lot of pressure.
'We are fully aware of the delays that are caused when it comes to trial dates with insufficient judges that need to be appointed, and the supporting staff that needs to be appointed. The point of the trial dates is important, particularly when it comes to the backlogs and pressures in our courts. In some cases, people have to wait for about five years for a trial. This is unacceptable, and it's an indication that there are too few judges.'
ALSO READ: 'Free' judges, lack of resources: Hlophe bemoans judicial 'nightmare' after budget cuts
According to Judges Matter, the Gauteng High Court is in a state of crisis, with the earliest trial dates not available until 2030.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
4 days ago
- The Citizen
Judiciary budgetary constraints, shortage of judges and backlogs ‘unacceptable'
The Gauteng High Court is in a state of crisis, with the earliest trial dates not available until 2030. Budgetary constraints have led to a shortage of judges in South Africa, with the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) unable to provide the judiciary with the much-needed support. On Wednesday, the OCJ briefed the portfolio committee on justice and constitutional development on its annual performance plan and budget. The OCJ was allocated a total budget of R2.607 billion (2024/25), of which R1.333 billion was allocated to the Direct Charge for judges' remuneration and benefits. ALSO READ: MK party demands answers: Why are some judges living lavish lifestyles? During the financial year, it spent 108% of its budget. The National Treasury has allocated an additional budget, ensuring that the OCJ is adequately capacitated to enhance support for the judiciary. The OCJ informed the committee of the shortage of law researchers. 'The ratio of law researchers to judges is currently not acceptable. But thanks to the budget injection, we have managed to reprioritise funds so that we can create additional law researchers for our Supreme Court of Appeal. The ratio will then be two judges per researcher. The ideal is one-on-one,' said acting secretary-general of the OCJ, Advocate Marelize Potgieter. Shortage of judges 'unacceptable' African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) member Steven Swart lamented the shortage of judges, which results in people waiting years for their trial dates. 'What I need to emphasise is the fact of the budgetary constraints, and while there was an additional funding given to the office of the chief justice, it's still nowhere near the requirements,' said Swart. ALSO READ: Judges urge President Ramaphosa to reconsider salary increase snub 'According to the most recent budget speech by the finance minister, he identifies spending pressures that may require funding later this year, including strengthening the capabilities of the Office of the Chief Justice. 'Additional funds were given, but not sufficient as is required when considering we have done oversight on the shocking state of the buildings, at a high court level and [magistrate court] level. This places a lot of pressure. 'We are fully aware of the delays that are caused when it comes to trial dates with insufficient judges that need to be appointed, and the supporting staff that needs to be appointed. The point of the trial dates is important, particularly when it comes to the backlogs and pressures in our courts. In some cases, people have to wait for about five years for a trial. This is unacceptable, and it's an indication that there are too few judges.' ALSO READ: 'Free' judges, lack of resources: Hlophe bemoans judicial 'nightmare' after budget cuts According to Judges Matter, the Gauteng High Court is in a state of crisis, with the earliest trial dates not available until 2030.
IOL News
6 days ago
- IOL News
Court denies Two Oceans Marathon chairperson's bid to silence blogger
The chairperson of the Two Oceans Marathon tried to gag a runner from publishing what she deemed to be defamatory statements regarding her and the event. Image: Ryan Wilkisky/BackpagePix The Gauteng High Court has dismissed an urgent application from Antoinette Cavanagh, chairperson of Cape Town's well-known Two Oceans Marathon, in her bid to silence a runner and blogger who has raised concerns about various "irregularities" and 'problems' associated with races like the Two Oceans Marathon. Cavanagh turned to the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, as she claimed that Stuart Mann - the author of a blog known as The Running Mann - has made defamatory statements on his blog. He shares information about road running events and what he calls 'exposé articles'. He has apparently brought public attention to a number of irregularities and problems that arose in races including the Two Oceans and the Comrades Marathon. Cavanagh approached the court for relief stemming from four posts which Mann published on social media. These include an article that appeared in December last year in which he queries whether Cavanagh is an appropriate person to chair the board of the Two Oceans. He set out apparent inconsistencies between her professional and running credentials as set out in a press release announcing her election on the one hand, and those details of her credentials which Mann was able to verify on the other hand. In April this year he dealt with certain controversies that emerged during the 2025 iteration of the Two Oceans, including a shortage of bronze medals, which Mann contends was due to Two Oceans accepting more entries than it had a permit for. He also insinuated that she has the board completely under her thumb, as well as publishing her CV which served before the board when she was elected chair. Cavanagh, in claiming the publications are defamatory and unlawful, wanted Mann to remove them and publish an apology. She also wanted an order preventing future publication of similar content. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Mann disputed the urgency of the application and denied that the content of the posts is defamatory or otherwise unlawful. Judge Seena Yacoob commented that the 'chaotic' and 'vague' manner in which the application is pleaded does not commend itself to determination on an urgent basis, but she agreed to hear it on an urgent basis. She said both Cavanagh and the Two Oceans Marathon (cited as the second applicant) fail to set out a clear factual background. In addition, the judge said, the applicant's papers contain neither the dates of the publications, nor the specific statements or utterances complained of. Cavanagh, however, said that she considers each publication defamatory in its entirety. Judge Yacoob further noted that the publications consist of much material which is either not obviously defamatory, or not defamatory at all. 'Neither of the applicants have made out a case that the esteem in which they are held is of a particular type. Cavanagh does not favour the court with her own full history nor does she demonstrate that she is viewed with any particular esteem or that she has a reputation for integrity and good leadership.' The judge added that the Two Oceans does not contend that it has run its events in a manner reasonably beyond criticism and above board. It does not even contend, let alone attempt to demonstrate that it has conducted its events lawfully and in a manner compliant with its permits from the City of Cape Town. 'There is no attempt to demonstrate that any of the factual claims made in the publications is untrue, although there is a bald allegation that they are all false,' Judge Yacoob said in turning down the application. Cape Argus
IOL News
6 days ago
- IOL News
Bid to silence a blogger's running reviews on the Two Oceans Marathon failed in court
PLAN ACCORDINGLY The head of the Two Oceans Marathon failed with her bid to gag a blogger, whose focus is on the country's major marathons, after he made certain allegations the popular Cape-based road running event. Picture: Ian Landsberg/ Independent Media Image: Ian Landsberg/ Independent Media THE Gauteng High Court dismissed the urgent application aimed at silencing a runner and blogger who has raised concerns about irregularities in major races, specifically the Two Oceans Marathon. The ruling underscored the tensions between race management and public accountability in South Africa's running community. Antoinette Cavanagh, chairperson of the Two Oceans Marathon, who approached the court for relief, and directed her application at Stuart Mann, the author behind the blog The Running Mann, who has drawn attention to what he describes as "irregularities" in various running events, including the Two Oceans and the renowned Comrades Marathon. In court, Cavanagh claimed that Mann's online commentary contained defamatory statements, particularly focusing on four posts he shared on social media. Among them was a December article questioning her suitability to chair the board of the Two Oceans, which highlighted discrepancies between the credentials she publicly presented and those Mann verified. In his December 2025 "expose", Mann queries whether Cavanagh is an appropriate person to chair the board of the Two Oceans. He set out apparent inconsistencies between her professional and running credentials as set out in a press release announcing her election on the one hand, and those details of her credentials which Mann was able to verify on the other hand. In April this year he dealt with certain controversies that emerged during the 2025 iteration of the Two Oceans, including a shortage of bronze medals, which Mann contends was due to Two Oceans accepting more entries than it had a permit for. He also insinuated that she has the board completely under her thumb, as well as publishing her CV which served before the board when she was elected chair. Cavanagh, in claiming the publications are defamatory and unlawful, wanted Mann to remove them and publish an apology. She also wanted an order preventing future publication of similar content. Mann disputed the urgency of the application and denied that the content of the posts is defamatory or otherwise unlawful. Judge Seena Yacoob commented that the 'chaotic' and 'vague' manner in which the application is pleaded does not commend itself to determination on an urgent basis, but she agreed to hear it on an urgent basis. She said both Cavanagh and the Two Oceans Marathon (cited as the second applicant) fail to set out a clear factual background. In addition, the judge said, the applicant's papers contain neither the dates of the publications, nor the specific statements or utterances complained of. Cavanagh, however, said that she considers each publication defamatory in its entirety. Judge Yacoob further noted that the publications consist of much material which is either not obviously defamatory, or not defamatory at all. 'Neither of the applicants have made out a case that the esteem in which they are held is of a particular type. Cavanagh does not favour the court with her own full history nor does she demonstrate that she is viewed with any particular esteem or that she has a reputation for integrity and good leadership.' The judge added that the Two Oceans does not contend that it has run its events in a manner reasonably beyond criticism and above board. It does not even contend, let alone attempt to demonstrate that it has conducted its events lawfully and in a manner compliant with its permits from the City of Cape Town. 'There is no attempt to demonstrate that any of the factual claims made in the publications is untrue, although there is a bald allegation that they are all false,' Judge Yacoob said in turning down the application.
