Although judicial proceedings will generally be bound by the requirements of natural justice to a greater degree than will hearings before administrative tribunals, judicial decision-makers, by virtue of their positions, have nonetheless been granted considerable deference by appellate courts inquiring into the apprehension of bias. This is because judges ‘are assumed to be [people] of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances’: The presumption of impartiality carries considerable weight, for as Blackstone opined at p. 361 in Commentaries on the Laws of England III . . . ‘[t]he law will not suppose possibility of bias in a judge, who is already sworn to administer impartial justice, and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea’. Thus, reviewing courts have been hesitant to make a finding of bias or to perceive a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of a judge, in the absence of convincing evidence to that effect.
On the face of it this does not seem like a significant victory for the NPA in building a solid case against Mr Zuma because they already have a copy of the diary in dispute which was accepted as evidence in the Shaik trial. But maybe there are other documents among the one’s requested that we have not been told of and that will help the state.
In any case, it seems clear that Mr Zuma will be recharged by the NPA later this year and that he will therefore be a defendant in a criminal trial at the time of the ANC conference in Polokwane in December.