The Pan South African Language Board (PanSALB) has welcomed the ruling handed by the Eastern Cape High Court over a contempt of court charge brought against legal practitioner, Mr Melani, by a Whittlesea Magistrate for addressing the court in isiXhosa.
In the matter brought before the High Court for special review, the magistrate seemed to be under the impression that speaking any language other than English (which is the official language of record of the Superior courts) constituted contempt of court. The High Court correctly found this to be an incorrect premise given the constitutional aspirations of the language provisions articulated in sections 6 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the judgement cites section 35 (3) (k) which stipulates the right to a fair trial that every accused person must be tried in a language that he understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted into that language.
Therefore, although the language of record in South African courts is currently English, this does not negate the rights of citizens, legal practitioners, witnesses nor accused persons to use their own languages during court proceedings. The only qualifying criterion is that interpreters must be present during court proceedings, which the court bears the responsibility of providing. “As PanSALB we want to dispel the notion that the use of indigenous languages is only meant for South African citizens outside of their professional careers. On the contrary, ALL South Africans enjoy equal language rights and the right to participate in public life using their own languages. Therefore, in the context of the courts, interpreters are there for all participants during court proceedings, not just the accused. Interpreters have the solemn duty to ensure that proceedings are captured accurately into the official language of record of the court. The judgment clearly distinguishes between the official language of the courts and the language rights of the court participants. Ensuring that submissions are made in the official language of record of the courts is the function of court language professionals, not litigants nor legal practitioners,” said Mr Julius Dantile, PanSALB Acting Chief Executive Officer. “There can only be furtherance of multilingualism in the country when all citizens can fully participate in public life using their own languages, regardless of the profession they are in. Indigenous African languages can contain all knowledge and express all human experiences, and as such, there is no limitations to what professions can utilise them or not. The legal practitioner had a right to resort to another language and he should not be punished for contempt for breaking the English as official language of record protocol.
The judgment reiterates section 6 of the Constitution that provides that indigenous languages enjoy parity of esteem with English, and that the courts may not treat all other official languages use as inherently disrespectful or improper” he concluded.