Clive Michael Plasket (born 3 October 1957) is a South African jurist and retired judge who served in the Supreme Court of Appeal from 2019 to 2022.
[1] In April 2003, President Thabo Mbeki announced that, on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission, he would appoint Plasket to the bench as a permanent judge of the Eastern Cape High Court.
[9] He also sat as an acting judge in politically controversial matters, including Democratic Alliance v President, on Menzi Simelane's appointment to the National Prosecuting Authority.
[11][12] Although he was considered a frontrunner,[13] although the interview panel praised his "impressive CV",[14] and although the Mail & Guardian said that commissioners from opposition parties "appeared enamoured" of him,[15] the Judicial Service Commission did not recommend him for appointment; Xola Petse and Ronnie Pillay were appointed instead, although the Mail & Guardian reported that Plasket was popular among the sitting judges of appeal and that he would be "favoured when future vacancies occur".
[21] During the interview, held in April, he was again questioned about affirmative action, and also about the Blue Moonlight judgement, socioeconomic rights, and land expropriation without compensation; Supreme Court of Appeal President Mandisa Maya complimented him as "a fearless fighter for the disadvantaged" whose "long battle" to ensure social justice in the Eastern Cape had created the perception that he was "an anti-government judge".
[4][22] After the interviews, Plasket was one of the candidates whom the Judicial Service Commission recommended for elevation (alongside Daniel Dlodlo, Caroline Nicholls, Fikile Mokgohloa, and Thokozile Mbatha),[22] and his appointment was confirmed by President Cyril Ramaphosa in June 2019.
[23] Plasket served in the Supreme Court of Appeal from 2019 until his retirement in 2022. Notable judgements penned by him included Cash Paymaster Services v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency, on the tender for social grants provision,[24] and Esau v Minister of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, on the legality of the COVID-19 lockdown.