The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has published a 25-page proposed rulebook setting out how judges should be chosen and how members of the commission itself can be dealt with for misconduct.

The public has until 30 November to comment before the JSC settles the final version. The JSC is the constitutional body that interviews candidates for judicial office and recommends appointments to senior courts, such as High Courts, the Supreme Court of Appeal, and the Constitutional Court.

The document brings several parts of the appointment process into one place for the first time. It combines criteria for assessing prospective judges that were approved in 2023, a revised procedure for nominations, shortlisting, interviews, and voting approved earlier this year, and rules for dealing with JSC members who breach confidentiality, the law, or ethical standards. The JSC says the aim is to make its decisions more consistent and easier for the public to understand.

At the heart of the process are four questions. A candidate must be appropriately qualified, fit and proper for judicial office, and capable of acting independently. Fourthly, the JSC must also consider whether an appointment would help the judiciary broadly reflect South Africa’s racial and gender composition.

The document explains that being qualified means more than having the correct academic credentials. The JSC can examine a candidate’s legal knowledge, courtroom experience, judgement, technical competence, and previous work as a lawyer or acting judge. It can also consider whether candidates produce judgements without unreasonable delays.

Candidates are also assessed on qualities including integrity, independence, humility, courtesy, courage, and work ethic. The rules say judges should be fair-minded and patient, treat people appearing before them with respect, and be able to explain their decisions clearly.

The rules also place limits on what can happen during the public interviews, for which the JSC has become widely known. Commissioners must keep their questions relevant to a candidate’s suitability for judicial office, while humiliating, racist, or sexist questioning should not be permitted.

Serious allegations against a candidate cannot simply be raised for the first time during an interview. The allegation must be sufficiently supported, and the candidate must receive written notice beforehand, with enough time to prepare a response.

Once interviews are finished, the JSC discusses candidates in private and then votes by secret ballot.

The proposed framework also deals directly with the conduct of JSC members. If there are reasonable grounds to believe that a commissioner has breached confidentiality, broken the law, or violated the ethical rules applying to them, the JSC can ask the body that appointed that person to remove, replace, or discipline them.

The JSC has already received submissions on parts of the procedure from organisations including Freedom Under Law, the Helen Suzman Foundation, Judges Matter, and the Law Society of South Africa. It will consider those submissions together with further comments received by 30 November before deciding on the final wording.

Once the process is complete, the JSC intends asking the justice minister to publish the final procedure in the Government Gazette, creating a single formal framework for how future judicial appointments should be handled.