A courtroom drama is unfolding at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in Bloemfontein as arguments on an application by AfriForum to have SCA Judge Raylene Keightley recuse herself from the highly charged “Kill the Boer Kill the Farmer” case are being met with a lot of resistance and that the application is abusive and should be dismissed.
Senior Counsel Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, arguing on behalf of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), condemned AfriForum’s assertion in no uncertain terms, calling it based on misapprehensions and a selective usage of evidence to try and frame Judge Keightley as biased. The courtroom drama, however, has been about AfriForum seeking the recusal of one of the five judges hearing the “Kill the Boer” case against the EFF.
That the EFF submits that AfriForum failed to even raise a recusal application in a relevant case in 2018 involving UNISA reeks off an improper motive in the present attempt, and how six years later. “According to the EFF, previous statements by Justice Keightley regarding AfriForum should not be seen as bias and the issue is a misdirection of facts by those that want to undermine the judiciary
Mr. Ngcukaitobi submitted that AfriForum had been afforded full opportunity to ventilate their concerns relating to the impartiality of Justice Keightley during the previous court proceedings but had failed to do so. He submitted that their silence was a confirmation of her competence to adjudicate the case.
But AfriForum Senior Counsel Jeremy Gauntlett argued differently, submitting that there are reasonable prospects to doubt the impartiality of Justice Keightley. Gauntlett said that her recusal was called for as her prior statements would affect the outcome of the “Kill the Boer” case in front of the SCA. Although she accepted that Justice Keightley was genuine, Gauntlett said consequences of her comments must be faced. Justice Keightley, during the hearing, asked Gauntlett whether her conduct would prejudice her participation in future cases where AfriForum was a party, even if not linked to the present issue.
And as the legal saga winds, the EFF is undeterred in demanding the matter’s dismissal, insisting it should be at AfriForum’s costs.
The courtroom drama therefore grips tight the spectator, holding him in view of the very serious nature that the issues involved hold and the complexities of the judicial exercise, with judgment reserved.
