Question $1$

$(20$ marks$)$

Read the following fictitious scenario and answer the questions that follow:

The Honourable Mr Justice John Zuma, a member of the KwaZulu Natal High Court, has been accused of having an inappropriate sexual relationship with an advocate appearing in his court. Following these accusations, "Freedom For Law", a civil society organisation, laid an official complaint with the Judicial Services Commission $($JSC$).$

The JSC held a hearing regarding this complaint on $20$ June $2023.$ Eleven of the JSC members attended the meeting, with the others sending apologies for being unable to attend. Only one of the three members not attending sent an alternative member to attend on his behalf. The Premier of KwaZulu$-$Natal was not invited to attend the meeting as he was on an official visit to Russia. The Judge President of KwaZulu$-$Natal did, however, attend.

Six of the eleven members of the JSC found that Judge Zuma was not guilty of gross misconduct on the evidence before it$.$ This is because they accepted Judge Zuma's explanation that he had informed his superiors of the situation and assured them that the sexual relationship would not affect the outcome of the particular matter that he presides over. The complaint was, accordingly, dismissed. "Freedom For Law" now wishes to challenge the outcome of the JSC meeting and approaches you for legal advice. You are a senior advocate at the SK Chambers in Sandton.

Required:

$1\mathrm{.}1$ Explain the composition of the Judicial Service Commission $($JSC$)$ to "Freedom for Law". Refer to legislation in your answer.

$(10$ marks$)$

$1\mathrm{.}2$ Determine whether the decision by the JSC on $20$ June $2023$ was valid.

$(10$ marks$)$