Judicial Interviews or Public Executions? – Mtetwa Slams Judge Selection Process

The recent public interviews for the Labour Court have left many in Zimbabwe’s legal community shaken—not because of who was selected, but because of how the process was conducted.

What should have been a dignified and transparent procedure turned into a public spectacle of humiliation, led, shockingly, by the Chief Justice himself in his role as Chair of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Instead of probing legal reasoning or judicial philosophy, many interviews devolved into confrontational interrogations designed more to shame than to assess.

This behaviour was especially egregious when directed at candidates already serving within the judiciary—magistrates and JSC administrators who have dedicated years to public service, often under impossible conditions. Their reputations were dragged through the mud on live television. Personal shortcomings that could have been addressed quietly were instead weaponised for public consumption.

The power imbalance here is glaring. Candidates could not defend themselves without fear of career repercussions. They were berated by Commissioners who seemed more interested in scoring points than selecting capable judges.

Even more disturbing were the constitutionally questionable questions. For the Attorney-General to ask why a magistrate refused to remand an accused person is a direct assault on judicial independence. It reveals a justice system where suspects are arrested before investigations are complete, and judicial officers are pressured to rubber-stamp detentions.

Let’s be clear: a magistrate’s refusal to indulge prosecutorial delays should be praised, not punished. I have handled cases where trial dates are set and postponed repeatedly, not because of judicial inefficiency but due to prosecutorial disarray. Yet it is the magistrate who ends up vilified.

These interviews have not strengthened public trust in the judiciary—they’ve undermined it. They send a message to judicial officers: do not act independently, do not challenge the State, or your career will suffer. And to prospective candidates: apply at your own risk.

This is not what judicial reform was meant to look like. Transparency does not require degradation. Accountability does not demand humiliation.

The Chief Justice and the JSC must rethink this process. Interviews must be fair, respectful, and focused on merit. Otherwise, the system will continue to repel the very talent it so desperately needs.

It’s time for the legal profession to speak out. Silence is no longer an option.