Gauntlett's case a symptom of an unfolding national tragedy

There is more than Jeremy Gauntlett to the Gauntlett case. It is a symptom of an unfolding national tragedy.  For the third time the Judicial Service Commission has failed to appoint Jeremy Gauntlett as a one of our judges.  The South African legal profession if devoured by divisive professional competitions and ego contexts, yet within it there is consensus that Gauntlett is one of South Africa's best legal minds.

I have known him for 15 years and he is one of the few people I recognize to be smarter than I am and a better lawyer than I am. My leader Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi has known him for 40 years, since when Gauntlett defied the laws of apartheid and the university's establishment to allow Buthelezi to address students at Stellenbosch University in the 70s.  

Gauntlett has a gift that most others do not have. He is brighter than most, and his legal knowledge exceeds that of most lawyers and judges, including some of those who interviewed him. His patriotic and democratic credentials are impeccable. The very fact that he is willing to forgo the astronomic fees he can charge as a senior counsel to serve as a judge at a much lower pay attests to his commitment to the Republic and to his personal values.

There is no identified flaw in his professional track record or character. Therefore, he is the perfect candidate. Yet this is rejected. Why?  The immediate answer is that he is white. That by itself would be a symptom of our Republic have failed his promises. If Gauntlett has in fact been rejected on account of his race, South Africa can now be looked at as failed county in which again rabid racisms reigns untamed and uncontrolled and the constitution means nothing.  

There may be more, which is even more concerning. Gauntlett makes most of us feel stupid, inadequate and incompetent. In the past decades, many people have been appointed to pubic positions that are way above their God-given talents, professional qualifications and expertise, including positions in the judiciary. Gauntlett's presence in their midst would highlight their incompetence, for Gauntlett has long given proof of not suffering fools.

Hence, the systems is closing ranks and prefers filling positions with either people who have lower skills and intellect or with those who, in spite of their skills and intellect, have made the suffering of fools a habit or faith of theirs, and therefore pose no challenge to the growing wave of incompetence and inefficiency.

If this is true, one must wonder the extent to which the foundations of the social compact forged twenty years ago can survive. The Republic belongs to us all. It deserves the best the best of us can give her. Gauntlett's rejection speaks of mediocre people who have occupied the Republic for their personal use and convenience and for not the greater public good.

It may just be the case that Gauntlett's third rejection as a judge means that this Republic of ours has no space or use for those of his children who are white, bright and unwilling to compromise when it comes to principles, efficiency, standards and quality. Were this the case, history may one day just end up recording that it was with the Gauntlett's case the penny dropped and many of those who for long stood by the sidelines frozen by impotence and indolence finally dropped the gauntlet and acted.

Statement issued by Mario GR Oriani-Ambrosini, MP IFP Spokesman on Justice, October 21 2012

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter