According to Zondo, Sisulu's article was “rich in insult but very poor in substantiation and in any analysis because it does not refer to any judgments that judges have given which have been analysed to produce the conclusions that she produces”.
The judiciary was not saying that it could not be criticised, Zondo said, but Sisulu's article could not be classed as criticism.
“It is very important in this country that we draw the line on conduct that is acceptable and conduct that is unacceptable.
“As I said, we as the judiciary do not say we should not be criticised but criticism should have proper basis. Ms Sisulu has insulted us. And we as the judiciary have done [nothing] other than doing our job,” Zondo said.
He said it would be acceptable if such views were being expressed by a young and inexperienced person but not by someone who has been in the executive for so many years.
“That such a senior member who serves in two of the arms of the state — parliament and the executive — to see fit to insult the justices of the Constitutional Court, the judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal and judges of the high courts, particularly black judges, because she focuses on them, is most regrettable.”
He said he had looked at all the sentences in the article and found no substantive facts to warrant the insults.