Civil society urges Ramaphosa to appoint ConCourt judges

South Africa's Constitutional Court faces a critical bottleneck that extends far beyond the courthouse: a five-month delay in judicial appointments is now creating a cascading backlog of cases, raising serious governance concerns for European investors already reassessing their exposure to the country's legal system.

In mid-October 2025, the Judicial Service Commission submitted recommendations for five candidates to fill two vacant Constitutional Court positions. Nearly half a year later, President Cyril Ramaphosa has yet to make these appointments. This delay is unprecedented in recent South African history and signals potential institutional friction at the highest levels of government—precisely the kind of uncertainty that erodes investor confidence.

**The Immediate Legal Impact**

The Constitutional Court is South Africa's final arbiter on constitutional matters, labour disputes, property rights, and regulatory decisions. When the court operates below full capacity, case backlogs inevitably grow. Already, civil society organizations including Judges Matter, Freedom Under Law, Section27, and the Legal Resources Centre have publicly documented how delayed judgments are affecting cases ranging from healthcare access to land reform—issues with direct implications for foreign investment in healthcare, agriculture, and real estate sectors.

For European entrepreneurs operating in South Africa, delayed judgments translate to prolonged legal uncertainty. A manufacturing company awaiting a ruling on labour regulations cannot efficiently plan workforce expansion. An investor in land-based ventures (agriculture, tourism, property development) faces extended periods of regulatory ambiguity. These delays impose real costs: delayed capital deployment, extended due diligence periods, and increased insurance premiums for political and legal risk.

**Governance Red Flags for Institutional Investors**

The appointment delay raises a more troubling question: why is the president not filling these positions? Possible explanations—institutional conflict, political calculation, or bureaucratic inertia—each carry different risk profiles for investors. If the delay reflects tension between the executive and judicial branches, it suggests institutional checks and balances may be weakening. If it reflects political attempts to influence judicial composition, that's a direct threat to rule of law.

European institutional investors (pension funds, asset managers, development finance institutions) have increasingly scrutinized African jurisdictions for governance quality. South Africa's Constitutional Court has historically been respected as independent and rigorous. This appointment delay chips away at that reputation, particularly when accompanied by other recent institutional pressures.

**Market Implications**

South Africa's JSE-listed companies, particularly those in regulated sectors (banking, telecommunications, energy), depend on timely Constitutional Court rulings for regulatory clarity. Delayed appointments create a drag on capital efficiency across the economy. For European investors in South African equities or bonds, judicial delays compress returns and increase tail risks.

The delay also affects investor confidence in dispute resolution. European companies entering joint ventures, licensing agreements, or procurement contracts rely on the Constitutional Court as a backstop for contract enforcement. A court operating below capacity is a court that cannot reliably provide this backstop.

**Path Forward**

Civil society pressure may finally force action. However, investors should monitor whether the president appoints candidates with clear independence credentials or whether appointments reflect political considerations. The quality of these appointees matters as much as the speed of appointment.