Met verwysing na die besluit en direktief van 13 Desember 2023 om die Regspraktykraad/Legal Practice Council se toelatingseksamens vir prokureurs, notarisse en aktevervaardigers slegs in Engels te laat aflê. 

Die onderstaande skrywe deur die Voorsitter van die Afrikanerbond se Nasionale Raad is op 24 Januarie 2024 aan die Regspraktykraad gestuur. Ontvangs is erken:  

 

 Die Regspraktykraad is volgens Art 4 van Wet 28 van 2014 en gewysig in 2017 tot stand gebring en die doel van die wet is “to provide a legislative framework for the transformation and restructuring of the legal profession that embraces the values underpinning the Constitution and ensures that the rule of law is upheld;” 

Toegang tot die reg moet volgens die bostaande wet verkry word deur ”measures that provide equal opportunities for all aspirant legal practitioners in order to have a legal profession that broadly reflects the demographics of the Republic;” 

Die ideaal is gestel na die demokratiese verkiesing in 1994 om die status van die ampstale van Afrikaans en Engels naas nege addisionele inheemse tale te handhaaf en te bevorder. Dit is verwoord in die Grondliggende Bepalings soos vervat in die 1996-Grondwet. Gebaretaal het in 2023 die status as twaalfde amptelike taal verwerf. 

Die teendeel het egter gebeur. Afrikaans het as voertaal die amptelike status verloor met die gevolg dat Engels as die lingua franca van Suid-Afrika uittroon. Dit is eweneens geldig vir Afrikaans as regstaal. Die noodwendige gevolg is dat benewens Afrikaans, die ander ampstale nie voldoende beskerm word of bevorder word in hul funksie as regstaal nie en word Engels telkens verkies. Gelyke geleenthede/Equal opportunities kan hiervolgens nie wees om slegs Engels as vereiste te stel nie.

Die taalaktivis en prokureur Cerneels Lourens skryf by geleentheid oor ‘n lesing deur regter E Bertelsmann waartydens hy dit duidelik gestel het dat die taal van die kliënt in pleitstukke by voorkeur gebruik behoort te word. Hy verwys na elke litigant se fundamentele reg om hom/haar van ‘n taal te bedien wat hy/sy verstaan wanneer hy/sy hom of haar tot die hof wend – S v Pienaar 2000 (2) SACR 143 (NK). Die Regspraktykraad negeer die beginsel. 

 

Dit het veel makliker geword om Engels te gebruik as regstaal en die uiteinde van die saak is dat Regsafrikaans stelselmatig aan sy eie genade oorgelaat word. Taal en die regte het van meet af 'n komplekse verhouding en is dikwels onlosmaaklik van mekaar. ‘n Regskundige het by geleentheid gesê: "Reg is taal. Wie toegang tot die regsproses soek, moet woorde hê of vind." Ongelukkig is die wanindruk wat bestaan dat dit slegs in Engels kan wees. Moontlik kan dit toegeskryf word aan die persepsie dat die bevordering van en voorkeur vir Engels en dat die opheffing van die individu in Engels, sal lei tot gevolglike welvaart. Dit is telkens deur kundiges uitgewys dat die oënskynlike voorkeur vir Engels in onderrig vir die rede, inderwaarheid 'n mite in Suid-Afrika is. Om eenvoudig toegang tot 'n taal te hê, beteken nie dat dit inherent voordelig is nie; wat werklik saak maak, is wat 'n persoon met die taal kan dóén. Afrikaanse regslui het uitstekend presteer, ook in Engels en daarom is die besluit van die Regspraktykraad (RPR) so teleurstellend. 

Ons is dit eens met PANSAT se siening oor die Regspraktykraad se besluit, dat Engelse eentaligheid diskriminerend van aard is en mense uitsluit, in die geval Afrikaanse toetreders as prokureurs, notarisse en aktevervaardigers. Die Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns is na ons mening heeltemal korrek in die standpunt dat die gebruik van Afrikaans in die howe deur hierdie besluit negatief geraak word. Ons deel daarom die kommer dat geen van die ander inheemse amptelike tale in die toekoms tot volle regstale sal ontwikkel nie en dat die sprekers van ander tale behalwe Engels nie die howe kan benut as ʼn onontbeerlike instrument om hulle gedagtes en idees oor te dra nie. 

Net so is AfriForum se kommer geldig dat die Regspraktykraad die besluit sou geneem het op grond van die bewering dat “Afrikaanse kandidate onregmatig bevoordeel word omdat hulle in hulle moedertaal geëksamineer word, terwyl die eksamens nie in enige ander inheemse taal afgelê kan word nie.” Volgens Rapport van 6 Januarie 2024 word die siening bevestig deur Busani Mabunda, wat voorsitter is van die Regspraktykraad se onderwysraad.

Die Regspraktykraad se siening in die verband is ʼn lui manier om eerder taaluitsluiting deur slegs Engels te bevorder, as om die grondwetlike mandaat na te kom, deur tale te ontwikkel en die ontwikkelde vermoë in stand te hou en so by te dra tot die ontginning van die diversiteit van die land. Veral is die siening dat Afrikaanssprekers ‘onregmatig bevoordeel’ word deur Afrikaanse eksaminering dan juis ʼn bewys van die besondere waarde van moedertaal. Die Regspraktykraad skiet homself dus in die voet deur almal oor die voet in Engels te laat eksamineer en nie enige eksamenmateriaal in enige van die ander amptelike tale beskikbaar te stel nie. Die duidelike grondwetlike voorskrif in subartikel 6(2) van die SA grondwet bepaal dat die staat, waarvan die Regspraktykraad deel is, die inheemse tale moet ophef, word eenvoudig eenkant geskuif om Engels ter wille te wees. 

Op die slegs Engels webwerf van die Regspraktykraad word bevestig dat ʼn soortgelyke besluit wat deur ʼn kennisgewing van 4 Maart 2019 bekendgemaak is deur ʼn besluit van 13 Desember 2019 teruggetrek is. Daar sou dan, terwyl konsultasieprosesse onderneem sou word, voortgegaan word om eksamens in Afrikaans en Engels aan te bied. Die skielike, onbehoorlike en ondeursigtige kennisgewing van Desember 2023 is nou reeds van toepassing op voornemende prokureurs wat in Maart 2024 die eksamen moet aflê. Vir verskeie voornemende kandidate is Engels ʼn tweede of derde taal. Dit is eenvoudig nie billik om studente in Afrikaans te dwing om nou die eksamen in Engels af te lê nie.    

Die Regspraktykraad se slegs Engels beleid mag voldoen aan die regering se diskriminerende kriteria vir transformasie maar is kortsigtig en nie in regsbelang in Suid-Afrika met sy diversiteit nie. 

Langs die weg wil ons ʼn beroep op die Regspraktykraad doen om die besluit ter syde te stel en ʼn taalbeleid te ontwikkel in lyn met die voorskrifte van die Suid-Afrikaanse grondwet. Die reg moet toeganklik wees vir almal in die amptelike tale en moet gevolglik ook nie Afrikaans se reeds verworwe status afwater, vir slegs die wat bedrewe is in Engels nie.

________________________________________________________________

With reference to the decision and directive of 13 December 2023 to have the Legal Practice Council's entrance examinations for lawyers, notaries and conveyancers conducted only in English.  

The letter below by the Chairperson of the Afrikanerbnd's National Council, Dries Wiese, was sent to the Legal Practice Council on January 24, 2024. Receipt of the letter has been acknowledged. 

The Legal Practice Council was established in accordance with s4 of Act 28 of 2014, as amended in 2017, and the purpose of the act is "to provide a legislative framework for the transformation and restructuring of the legal profession that embraces the values underpinning the Constitution and ensures that the rule of law is upheld”.

According to this act, access to the law must be obtained through "measures that provide equal opportunities for all aspirant legal practitioners in order to have a legal profession that broadly reflects the demographics of the Republic”. 

The ideal was set after the democratic election in 1994 to maintain and promote the status of the official languages of Afrikaans and English alongside the nine additional indigenous languages. This is articulated in the Founding Provisions as contained in the 1996 Constitution. Sign language acquired its status as the twelfth official language in 2023. 

However, the opposite has been happening. Afrikaans has lost its official status as a language of instruction, with the result that English towers above the rest as the lingua franca of South Africa. This is equally valid for Afrikaans as a legal language. The inevitable consequence is that neither Afrikaans nor the other official languages are adequately protected or promoted in their function as legal languages, while English is always preferred. The ideal of equal opportunities cannot be realised if only English is set as a requirement.

The language activist and lawyer Cerneels Lourens mentions a lecture by judge E Bertelsmann during which he made it clear that it was preferable for the language of the client to be used in pleadings. He refers to the fundamental right of every litigant to be served in a language that they understand when they turn to the courts – S v Pienaar 2000 (2) SACR 143 (NK). The Legal Practice Council is negating this principle. 

 

It has become much easier to use English as a legal language, and the end result is that legal Afrikaans is systematically being eroded. Language and law have a complex relationship from the outset and are often inseparable from each other. A legal expert once said: "Law is language. Whoever seeks access to the legal process must have or find words." Unfortunately, a misconception exists that it can only be in English. This may possibly be attributed to the perception that the promotion of and preference for English and uplifting the individual in English will lead to consequent prosperity. It has been repeatedly pointed out by experts, however, that South Africans’ apparent preference for English as a medium for instruction is in fact based on a myth. Simply having access to a language does not mean that it is inherently beneficial; what really matters is what a person can do with the language. Afrikaans lawyers have performed exceedingly well, in English too, and that is why the decision of the Legal Practice Council is so disappointing. 

We agree with PanSALB's view of the Legal Practice Council's decision, that English monolingualism is discriminatory in nature and excludes people, in this instance Afrikaans entrants, as lawyers, notaries and conveyancers. The South African Academy of Science and Art is, in our opinion, completely correct in its view that the use of Afrikaans in the courts is negatively affected by this decision. We therefore share the concern that none of the other indigenous official languages will develop into full legal languages in the future and that the speakers of languages other than English will not be able to use the courts as an indispensable tool to convey their thoughts and ideas. 

Similarly, AfriForum's concern is valid that the Legal Practice Council may have made its decision based on the claim that “Afrikaans candidates are unfairly favoured because they are examined in their mother tongue, while the examinations cannot be conducted in any other indigenous language." According to the 6 January 2024 issue of Rapport, this view is confirmed by Busani Mabunda, who is chairperson of the Legal Practice Council's education board.

The Legal Practice Council's view in this regard is a lazy way of promoting language exclusion by touting only English, rather than fulfilling the constitutional mandate by developing languages and maintaining the developed ability, thereby contributing to the exploitation of the country’s diversity. In particular, the view that Afrikaans speakers are 'unlawfully advantaged' by Afrikaans examination is proof of the special value of teaching a person in their mother tongue. The Legal Practice Council is therefore shooting itself in the foot by having everyone examined in English and not making any examination material available in any of the other official languages. The clear constitutional directive in subsection 6(2) of the SA Constitution, which states that the state, of which the Legal Practice Council forms part, must uplift the indigenous languages, is simply pushed aside in favour of English. 

The English-only website of the Legal Practice Council confirms that a similar decision, announced by a notice of 4 March 2019, was withdrawn by a decision of 13 December 2019. Examinations were to continue in both Afrikaans and English while consultation processes were being undertaken. The sudden, improper and untransparent notice of December 2023 now already applies to prospective lawyers who are set to take the examination in March 2024. For many prospective candidates, English is a second or third language. It is simply not fair to force students in Afrikaans to take the examination in English at this point.    

The Legal Practice Council's English-only policy may meet the government's discriminatory criteria for transformation but is short-sighted and not in the judiciary’s interest of South Africa with its diversity. 

We therefore wish to appeal to the Legal Practice Council to set aside the decision and develop a language policy in line with the prescriptions of the South African Constitution. The law must be accessible to all in the official languages and consequently must not water down Afrikaans' previously acquired status, to cater for only those who are proficient in English.