AfriForum demands transparency from JSA regarding racially discriminatory practices

AfriForum has today sent a letter to the Johannesburg Society of Advocates (JSA) to request more information regarding accusations of racial discrimination practiced by the JSA. This comes after the JSA accused Advocate Mark Oppenheimer of spreading “misinformation” because Oppenheimer claimed that its admissions process is highly racialised and discriminatory.

AfriForum takes such accusations very seriously, especially due to the implications it has for public trust in the legal profession in South Africa. Therefore, AfriForum requested that the JSA provide the following information since 2016:

• The number of annual applicants for pupillage at the JSA during each year in this period.
• The number of applicants admitted to the pupillage programme during each year in this period.
• The racial and gender breakdown of the applicants in each year, insofar as this information was recorded.
• The race and gender of applicants admitted to the pupillage programme in each year.
• All the method(s) used to determine, record or classify applicants’ races.
• The policies, criteria, guidelines, scoring systems or other guiding documents that were used during this period to determine admission to pupillage.
• Any documents reflecting whether race was considered in pupillage admissions, as well as detailing how that standard was applied.
• Any documents reflecting the use, consideration or recommendation of racial targets, quotas, caps, preferences, weighting or other race-based criteria, regarding pupillage admissions.

According to Ernst van Zyl, Head of public relations at AfriForum, the JSA cannot simply hide behind accusations of “misinformation” if it cannot produce evidence of Oppenheimer’s claims being false. “It is in the interest of the public and trust in a legal system based on meritocracy, rather than racialism, that this information is made public,” says Van Zyl.

“If the facts are on the side of the JSA, providing full transparency regarding these matters will only strengthen their position. A rejection of this fair request for clarity will, however, raise even more serious questions for the JSA,” concludes Van Zyl.