Now, everybody that has spoken here that raised the problem has said that they don't disagree with the extension of the term of office of the Chief Justice. And yet, there is talk of bodies taking the matter to or challenging the President's actions in court. I read yesterday in the newspaper that Professor Kiki of the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at the University of Witwatersrand was saying it is taking the matter to court.
I wonder why we have to do so. You take a matter to court if you disagree with the outcome, and you then argue that the process followed was incorrect. Here, nobody is disagreeing with the outcome; it's a dispute about the process. Hon members know that the Superior Courts Bill is before us. It deals with, amongst other things, the issue of Constitutional Court judges and that is really the place where, in the longer term, the issue should be addressed.
I don't know why we have to waste money on litigation when there are many other issues which, I'm sure, are more deserving to litigate about and actually damage the image of the Chief Justice as being a person who was wrongly appointed, or that being the argument that people are making.
Chairperson, I hope that this issue doesn't become a matter that parties politic over. I think the law that I have read out is quite clear, and I would hope that everybody will afford the Chief Justice the respect he deserves. I thank you. [Applause.]