Zimbabwe’s leading Human Rights Lawyer and one of its most senior lawyers, Beatrice Mtetwa, has written this open letter to the Judicial Service Commission complaining about the unprofessional contact when interviewing prospective judges.
Open Letter to the Judicial Service Commission
By Beatrice Mtetwa
Like many litigation-focused lawyers, I closely followed the recently concluded interviews from which eight Labour Court judges are expected to be appointed. As the process unfolded, I grew increasingly alarmed that what was meant to be a platform for transparency, accountability, and independence in judicial appointments instead became a stage for publicly haranguing, humiliating, and belittling candidates. What was most disturbing is that this behaviour was not limited to a few rogue Commissioners—it appeared to be led by none other than the Chairman of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the Chief Justice himself.
Before the era of public interviews, judges were appointed through opaque processes led by the Minister responsible for justice. There were no public calls for expressions of interest, no announcements of vacancies, and certainly no interviews. Appointments were shrouded in secrecy. Even though there was a Judicial Service Commission in place, largely composed of ministerial appointees, it is debatable whether it had any real influence over who became a judge.
The introduction of formal procedures through constitutional and subsidiary legislation was widely welcomed as a progressive move towards transparent, impartial, and inclusive judicial appointments. While criticisms remain about the secrecy of scoring sheets and the confidential forwarding of shortlisted names to the President, at least these aspects do not involve the intentional public shaming of candidates.
Public interviews are meant to be the final step in a process that includes nominations, background checks, and assessments of basic eligibility—possibly even private engagement between the JSC and potential candidates. If issues are discovered during these earlier stages—whether about a candidate’s private life or pending litigation—why are they not addressed privately then? Why must a candidate’s dignity be torn apart on a public platform?
Of particular concern is the treatment of candidates already employed within the JSC as magistrates or administrators. I watched in disbelief as these individuals were subjected to degrading treatment, their professional dignity stripped away before the nation. Personal shortcomings that could have been handled through internal disciplinary procedures were instead weaponised in front of cameras. Regardless of past controversial rulings, no one deserves to be stripped of basic human dignity. As a legal practitioner, I am now expected to appear before these magistrates and treat them with respect, when their own employer has publicly humiliated them. Why should litigants trust the fairness of these magistrates if they have been declared incompetent in such a public, demeaning way? And how do these men and women return to their homes and families—once proud of their nomination—after enduring such disgrace?
This public degradation is fundamentally unfair, especially given the power dynamics.
The candidates cannot robustly defend themselves against their superiors. It is also clear that the Commissioners demonstrated a shocking ignorance of the realities of magistrates’ courts—particularly Court No. 14 at Rotten Row, arguably the busiest in the country.
On any given day, the magistrate handles numerous complex bail applications, refusal of remand motions, and preliminary challenges that demand well-reasoned, appeal-proof rulings. To reduce this demanding role to that of a mere “remand court” is a gross mischaracterisation.
Equally unacceptable were the questions that seemed to undermine the very independence that judicial officers must be guaranteed. For example, for the Attorney-General to ask why a magistrate refused to further remand an accused person is a flagrant violation of the Constitution’s requirement for judicial independence.
It reveals a systemic flaw in our justice system, where suspects are arrested before investigations are complete, and magistrates are pressured to keep them on remand even when the State has no case.
I have personally handled a matter where a trial date was set for July 2023, yet the case only commenced in September 2024—despite repeated refusals by the magistrate to allow further postponements. The fault lies not with the magistrates but with overzealous prosecutors and a broken prosecutorial system.
It is appalling that JSC Commissioners, many of them lawyers, asked such improper and suggestive questions—questions that threaten the impartiality of the judiciary and coerce magistrates into ruling not on the merits of each case, but based on how their decisions may impact future judicial prospects.
As head of the JSC, the Chief Justice is duty-bound to ensure that public interviews are conducted with fairness, dignity, and respect for every candidate.
He must uphold the principles of administrative justice and safeguard fair labour standards within the judiciary.
The people of Zimbabwe deserve a process that produces the most qualified and capable judges, not one that deters competent legal professionals from ever applying due to fear of public humiliation.
I call on the legal profession to speak with one voice in condemning this charade. Just as the South African legal community pushed back when Julius Malema turned judicial interviews into a theatre of racist outbursts that discouraged genuine talent, we too must draw a line.
This process, in its current form, is a disservice to the profession, the judiciary, and the people of Zimbabwe.
