A little noted decision made by the (newly constituted) complaints committee of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) on 22 July 2009 casts a new light (is this possible?) on the question of whether either Judge President John Hlophe or the judges of the Constitutional Court who made the complaint against him, should be impeached. It reads:
The Commission decided, in terms of Rule 3.1 of the Rules Governing Complaints and Enquiries, that the allegations made in the Complaint and Counter Complaint, if established, would amount to gross misconduct.
Previously it was unclear whether the complaints committee of the JSC believed that the allegations by either side, if established, would constitute gross misconduct warranting impeachment. Now we know if the JSC agrees with either side, it will reccommend impeachment of one (or more) judges.
The heart of the allegation by the Constitutional Court judges is that Judge President Hlophe: (i) visited the chambers of justice Jaftha (“without invitation”) and Nkabinde at the Constitutional Court; (ii) without invitation raised the matter of the Zuma/Thint cases that had been heard by the court; and (iii) in the course of that invitation sought improperly to persuade (no split infinitives for the CC!) the two judges to decide the Zuma/Thint cases in a manner favourable to Mr Zuma.
In support of these allegations the Constitutional Court judges claimed that Hlophe had told Nkabinde that “he had a mandate”; told her the issue of privilege in the Zuma/Thint cases had to be decided “properly”; told her that he was politically well-connected and had connections with the national intelligence, that some people would lose their positions after the election and that he had outgrown the High Court and was going to make himself available for a position on the Constitutional Court. Nkabinde also alleges that Hlophe told her that if the points raised by Zuma’s counsel were to be sustained there would be no case against the President of the ANC.
Jafhta claimed that Hlophe had told him the case against Zuma had to be looked at properly and that you are our last hope (“Sesithembele kinina”) and that Jaftha had gained the impression that Hlophe wished for a particular result. Jaftha, so it is alleged considered the approach serious and was part of an attempt aimed at interfering with the independent exercise of a judicial function. Both judges claimed that they had considered the approach improper.
In his response Hlophe admitted that he had raised the Zuma/Thint matter with Jaftha, that he had said the matter of priviledge had to be dealt with “properly”, and that “sesithembele kinina”, but denied that it was ever intended to convey to Jaftha that he meant a positive finding on the Zumal Thint matter. He also claimed that Jaftha did not show signs of veing uncomfortable during the discussion.
He also admitted that he raised the Zuma/Thint matter with Nkabinde when he met her a few weeks later and that he had expressed my very strong views on it, but at no point did he think that she was uncomfortable about the discussion. He denied saying that he had connections with national intelligence or that some people would lose their jobs after the election.
From this summary two things emerge. First, either Judge President Hlophe or Justice Nkabinde lied in their statements to the JSC. Second, the judges have a fundamentally different interpretation of the meetings, with Jaftha and Nkabinde claiming that they interpreted the meetings as an improper attempt to influence them, while Hlophe claims he did not seek in any way to influence them. The most damning claims by Nkabinde is denied by Hlophe.
If one takes these disputed facts off the table, either interpretation is plausible (although, to my mind, the interpretation of Jaftha and Nkabinde is more probable). However, if one believes Nkabinde’s version, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that Hlophe tried to improperly influence her. One question to be asked is whether Hlophe’s history of telling untruths should be held against him when deciding who to believe. Another is whether it should be significant that Hlophe denied only the most damning aspects of the allegations made against him.
The JSC can, of course, decide that even on Nkabinde’s version it is impossible to say whether the Judge President imporperly tried to influence the judges of the Constitutional Court and could decide not to proceed with the matter. But such a course of action would mean that the JSC would be allowing either Nkabinde or Hlophe (depending of whom one believes) to continue serving as a judge despite telling blatant lies to the JSC. Surely this would be an untenable situation?
And what about Hlophe’s counter complaint? The JSC decision means that if it finds that Hlophe’s allegations against the Constitutional Court judges are true, the judges of the Constitutional Court will have to be impeached. Hlophe alleged that:
- The judges of the Constitutional Court have undermined the Constitution by making a public statement in which they seek to activate a procedure for his removal for alleged improper conduct before properly filing a complaint with the Judicial Services Commission in terms of section 177 of the Constitution;
- The judges of the Constitutional Court have violated his right to dignity (section 10 of the Constitution) right to privacy (section 14 of the Constitution) right to equality (section 9 of the Constitution), right to procedural fairness (section 33 of the Constitution); right to access courts (section 34 of the Constitution);
- The conduct of the judges of the Constitutional Court failed to adopt a procedure that has upholds [sic] the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom; section 7(1) of the Constitution;
- The conduct of the judges of the Constitutional Court failed to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights;
- The judges of the Constitutional Court failed to adopt a procedure that is fair in that even as Hlophe filed this complaint he did not have a complaint from the judges of the Constitutional Court.
Nine judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal have in effect dismissed this complaint. Is the JSC bound by the SCA decision? If not, can it impeach the judges of the Constitutional Court? If it is bound by the SCA judgment, does this complaint contain anything not canvassed in the SCA ruling?
It would be a relief when this whole saga is over and we can all go back to consentrating on important issues around good governance and the protection and promotion of human rights. Meanwhile the JSC has its work cut out for it.
Mail & Guardian – Jafta J says “he would not make the inference that Hlophe tried to influence” him.
“If not, can it impeach the judges of the Constitutional Court?”
firstly the JSC does not Impeach only parliament can and I doubt parliament would even have the stomach or the political will to impeach nine judges, that would through your judiciary into complete chaos. It wont happen
secondly the JSC is bound by the SCA decision, as mentioned before the JSC is not a court and does not have the power to over rule an actual courts judgement.
Hlophes “crying in the corner” about how the complaint violated his rights, is simply just his opinion, however in a court ruling his rights were not violated.
Prof,
there is a serious error with your blog. It is only readable with Firefox. Internet Explorer v7 & 8 only shows the top part up to the first quote.
I am using Google Chrome, and it is fine
The best measure of the maturity of an institution is how it deals with tough situations.
George, I have asked my technical advisor to look into it. Thanks for alerting me.
The preliminary investigation yesterday poses some interesting questions:
(1) How did Hlophe know that the DA was the only party on the Con Court’s mailing list? Did his alleged connections at national intelligence tell him this? If so, does NI spy on the Con Court? If not, where could he have gained this information?
(2) Business Day reports that Hlophe had said that when he said “sesithembele kinina” it was at the end of the conversation, and it was meant as “words of encouragement” to mean that the Constitutional Court would resolve the uncertainty created by a “split” SCA on the Zuma case. There was no split decision in the SCA. Why did Hlophe then say there was a split? Was he just ill informed or fibbing again?
(3) It was confirmed that either Hlophe or Nkabinde is lying. Question is, who had the biggest motive to lie?
(4) Given (3) above, how will the JSC deal with this matter? Surely what is needed is for all the parties to be subjected to vigorous cross-examination to test their versions and to try and get to the truth? This means a full hearing will have to be held.
The full shortlist of nominees for the Constitutional Court posts can be found by clicking here.
Technical problems are now fixed. Apologies for the problem.
Prof, I hate to say it, but I told you so!
Jafta has now retracted his statements and actually exonerates Hlophe. I said if Jafta and Nkabinde really wanted to persue a complaint against Hlophe they would have done so, but they had to be convinced to do so after a meeting of all CCjustices, when I pointed this out I was attacked in this blog.
Now let me tell you, there is no case for the Honourable Judge President Hlophe, a CJ in waiting, I predict, to answer so will find the JSC. It’s only hlophe’s word against Nkabinde, who lest we forget initially said she saw no reason to lay a charge against Hlophe, but after being persuaded changed her tune, let her rather be impeached and that is a possibility. I am good at predicting outcomes for I am not a philosopher builiding castles in the sky but rather am close to the ground.
So Mdu, you are accusing Nkabinde of lying? Why is this not a scandalous (and possibly sexist) infringement of her rights? After all, you and others have pointed out that one should not jump to conclusions about Hlophe and that those who makde statements that prejudged him were infringing his rights. Now you are infirnging on Nkabinde’s rights. But I guess she is only a (black) women, so she does not count?
Mdu
Jafta has now retracted his statements and actually exonerates
No Mdu Jafta has said that yes there is a chance that Hlophe was not trying to influence him but also stated that yes there is a chance hlophe tried to influence him, either way it warrented jafta to warn Nkabinde
@Pierre
Pierre De Vos // Jul 31, 2009 at 8:50 am
very very interesting questions there…
Also saw you on the news last night, you getting abit gray in the hair there lol
but yes a full hearing is needed now without a doubt someone is committing perjury here
Granted, Prof., I don’t know who is lying betweeen the two of them, but let those with eyes open them, there will be no full hearing Chris, the writing is on the wall, and I will say I told you so on the 15th of August if don’t believe me, res ipsa loquitur and the JSC should apply the deminimis principle on this one!
Chris, in response to a question whether “Hlophe in any way tried to influence you?” Jafta reportedly answered “no”, now I do not know what you’re talking about?
Mdu
give me the link where you picked that quote up
I believe this is one of the things he said he said, so go with this “One can only work on an inference. I would really not know what intention he had. One has to look at the facts of the discussion and draw an inference.”
disturtion No 1
Jafta: “It’s unusual because we don’t discuss pending cases [if they are not one of the judges involved]
Hlophe: He said he and Jafta were friends, and they had discussed “so many things” when they met. When he compared himself to Zuma, it was in the context of a discussion about the difficulties he had encountered in the Western Cape. What he meant was that, like Zuma, “people will always find something wrong”.
so jafta is lying then?
disturtion No 2
Hlophe: He said that before they laid the complaint they could have “picked up the phone” and discussed it with him.
um a phone call was made by langa before the public statement.
disturtion No 3 (pointed out by pierre)
Hlophe: When he said “sesithembele kinina” it was at the end of the conversation, and it was meant as “words of encouragement” to mean that the Constitutional Court would resolve the uncertainty created by a “split” SCA on the Zuma case.
Pierre: There was no split decision in the SCA. Why did Hlophe then say there was a split? Was he just ill informed or fibbing again?
Mdu wasnt it you or Mzo that i had a debate about disturbed mind?
do you like apples?Jafta said that at the time of his meeting with Hlophe he did not think there was an attempt to influence him and that it was only after a conversation with Nkabinde that he got “concerned”.
how do like them apples?
Pierre, you are very naughty to suggest that Mdu may be “sexist” in questioning Nkabinde’s testimony.
You may mean in it jest, but it is no joking matter to trivialise sexism by throwing the charge about willy-nilly.
(Same goes for those on this blog who rubbish the concept of racism by continually accusing you of it.)
Prof,
I think Hlophe asked for the list of the people to whom the press statement was sent. You don’t need NIA to get that information, one or two phone calls will sort you out. To link that with the allegation about NIA is clutching at straws.
The real question is, assuming Hlophe is not lying to us about the DA having been the only political party to receive the press statement that day, why only the DA? Surely the IFP, UDM, ANC, FF+ would also be on that database, given the way in which they have been so litigious in the recent past!…of course, it could be that they are not in the list or their was a technical error with their e-mails – it happens. I have my doubts.
Reading the quotes attributed to Jafta in particular, I now think I know what Langa et al discussed with the 2 judges in those many meetings they had and it has now become clearer to me why Langa denied the other judges an opportunity to question the 2 judges. He knew they would crack and tell the other judges what they had been telling him all along, that they did not want to lodge a complaint because they did not think it was warranted. I think Jafta’s conduct after the press statement indicates clearly just how much pressure was put on him by the CJ – how else do you explain the consultation with Senior Counsel (being a complainant nogal – still trying to get my head around that); press statement saying you are not the complainant; about turn to support Langa’s affidavit; apparent contradictions on the testimony in April and yesterday?
I said it before, after all this is finished, there will be more than 1 judge whose conduct needs to be seriously looked at.
Perhaps somewhat predictably, it was confirmed that either Hlophe or Nkabinde has fibbed. And I would thank the Professor for drawing our collective attention to one way in which it could potentially be determined, on the probabilities, whether one or the other is lying.
If anyone is vaguely interested, I would like to take the question which the Professor provided a little further insofar as I for one would enjoy looking at any input from the bloggers.
Here are the questions: first, what might have motivated Hlophe to lie? Secondly, what motivation might Nkabinde have had for lying? And thirdly, given the circumstances and the sequence of events, which of the motivations for lying is the more probable and why?
Have a good weekend everyone.
Prof Can I ask:
Why did this issue even go to the JSC? Why couldn’t the judges just sort this one amongst themselves?
Why did the rest of the CC judges believe they would be influenced by two judges?
Shall we now take the judgement in the matter before the CC to have been correct? As a lay man I don’t understand how people who feel they have been influenced in one direction can still be seen to give an impartial judgement.
Mzo, I could not have said it better.
Michael (and Mdu) yes, I was maing a tongue in cheek statement about the sexism but perhaps it was not wise. Apologies.
Thomas, the issue is not – as I understand it – that any judge felt at any stage that he or she would be swayed by the alleged interference by Hlophe. It is not about the possible results (whether a judge would indeed have been swayed) but the unlawfulness of the alleged action that is the issue. The issue goes to the heart of the integrity and legitimacy of the judiciary. Section 165(3) of the Constitution states: “No person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the courts.” If it is true that Judge President Hlophe tried improperly to influence any justice on the Constitutional Court it would be wrong and would constitute gross misconduct for two reasons: (i) Any person who interferes with the functioning of the courts by trying sway judges to decide a case in a particular way is in breach of this constitutional duty; (ii) Hlophe is a judge and must therefore be held at an even higher standard than ordinary citizens. I will give an example from the criminal law context to illustrate: If I am stopped at a roadblock and caught in possession of cannabis and I tell the police officer I will give her R10 000 if she lets me go, I will be guilty of a criminal offense, even where the police officer is the most honest and trustworthy of officials and there was no chance of her taking my bribe. What would clinch my conviction is my intention to bribe, not whether the bribing was in fact successful. There is a good policy reason for this, namely if we want to stop corruption and bribery we have to punish any action that has as its intention to corrupt and undermine the system. The same goes for attempts to interfere with decisions by the judiciary.
Mzo // Jul 31, 2009 at 1:43 pm
im afriad there is a problem with your theory.
Who cares if the DA got a media statement from the concourt im sure 100′s of law practices got that very statement and media houses.
How nice to play the victim card again.
No agree you dont the NIA just go to IT and that brings your theory into crubbles.
Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke – who dared him to put the alleged “improper motive” behind the Constitutional Court’s complaint against him “on the table based on proper facts”.
They got an IT department so why not get IT to show that someone sent the DA the only media statement in existance?
or why dont you ask Martie herself registrar on +27 11 359-7400 or email registrar@concourt.org.za
what utter rubbish
Mzo another thing this is the perfect plateform for Jafta so dont you think giving the fact LANGA is on his way out, that jafta would of said “listen, I retract everything I said because I was pressured to make this statement i really didnt but they kept going on and on and i just had enough so i made the statement to get them off my back, I dont want any part of this anymore im done, we friends I trust him we bake ANC cookies together. but no, Mzo you are left with making a theory? once again no proof of pressure.
Mdu Im still waiting for that link to that quote?
The CC has a mailing list to which anyone can subscribe, to which it sends a copy of all its directions and media releases. If it’s true that only the DA received the statement (I don’t know if it is true) then it is because only the DA signed itself up to that mailing list.
The CC does NOT decide who goes on the mailing list. ANYONE can subscribe. The suggestion that the CC was somehow favouring the DA is therefore dishonest and unfair.
To help Mdu
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1042525
Mzo, with respect, I think you are not correct. The media release was sent automatically to everyone who had subscribed to the Constitutional Court service (you can go to the CC website and subscribe to this service in the same way you can subscribe to the ANC newsletter). If the DA is the only political party who has subscribed to this service as Hlophe alleged it would reflect rather badly on all the other political parties. This is a private data base in possession of the CC and I would be surprised if they shared this with anyone. But the only possible legitimate way to obtain this information was for the CC to have provided Hlophe with the list of subscribers. A few phone calls would not do the trick. Neither of us knows whether the information was requested from the CC and duly provided or whether it was obtained in a nefarious manner. My point was that it would be interesting to hear from the Judge President where he obtained this information (especially given the allegation by Nkabinde that Hlophe had told her he had national intelligence connections and that he had known she was writing the note on privilege). There may be an innocent explanation. Or there may not be. Worth asking though, don’t you think, as the full truth is surely what we all want to emerge?
Chris,
Once again, you are are shooting from the hip. My response was to Prof’s attempt to insinuate that Hlophe knows that the only political party the press statement was sent to was the DA BECAUSE of his alleged links with the NIA. As you correctly point out d in effect agreeing with me, the info should really be readily available.
Now, ASSUMING IT IS FACTUALLY CORRECT that the DA is the only political party that received the press statement when it was initially sent out – something I have no knowledge of – (and I also received a copy by the way), the question I am raising is, are those people questioning this simply caught up in conspiracy theories?
As for Jafta, I think he put it correctly, “one can only draw an inference” from all the events I raised in my previous post and decide for themselves whether there was any pressure on him to support Langa’s statement and, if so, just how much.
Mzo fair enough
but im not even gonna get into the DA thing, hlophe just played that as a victim card. How does that have any relevence to the actual matter at hand?
there was no pressure jafta would of said so, if anything he is in an uncomrfortable postion because he lodged a complaint against what seems like his best friend. so he is just sitting on the fence
Mzo, ANYONE can subscribe to the email list! The CC did not send the notice “only to the DA”. It sent it to all the subscribers of its mailing list. And the CC has no control over who subscribes.
If it is only the DA that has bothered to subscribe, that just shows that the other parties are too incompetent or disinterested to do so.
Pierre De Vos // Jul 31, 2009 at 3:09 pm
You seem to be missing my point, what I am trying to say to you is that Hlope most probably asked (officially or otherwise) for the list of people to whom the statement was sent and, to his dismay, discovered that the only political party that received the statement was the DA. I am by no means suggesting that the list is not private – I have no knowledge of this, but I am certain that Hlophe (as a party to the proceedings) he would have been given this information and, in my view, there is a good chance that hasked for it because the publishing of that press statement was central to his complaints against the CC judges. Infact, in one of his affidavits (I think it was in one of the Court cases) he actually mentioned that the press statement was sent to A, B, C and D. If the CC had not given him this information, I have no doubt they would have raised the questions you are now raising, rather belatedly!!
As I indicated earlier, there may of course be an innocent explanation, for example that the other political parties are useless enough not to get themselves in the database – only the efficient DA did.
Clear as mud, Jafta is doing another Mpshe. Zuma is the one to decide who gets the CC job and Jafta knows which side his bread is buttered.
The JSC needs to establish if indeed Jafta did call Nkabinde to warn her about Hlophe’s visit; and if so why did Jafta warn Nkabinde if Hlophe had no nefarious intentions?
Also, why is Jafta changing his story NOW? Does this mean he LIED before in his testimony to the JSC?
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1042525
Tony in Virginia // Jul 31, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“The JSC needs to establish if indeed Jafta did call Nkabinde to warn her about Hlophe’s visit; and if so why did Jafta warn Nkabinde if Hlophe had no nefarious intentions?”
Whilst I am wary to ascribe the motives you seem to ascribe to Jafta, I agree with the above statement. If Jafta really didn’t see any malicious intentions when Hlophe discussed the issue with him, why did he warn Nkabinde (assuming it is established that he in fact did)? If Nkabinde was indeed warned, why did she not cancel her appointment with Hlophe because it does not appear that there was any NB business they were scheduled to discuss (assuming Hlophe’s version is correct, that he had an appointment – something I think their respective diaries can confirm)? If she had already been warned, why did Nkabinde state it upfront to Hlophe that she was not going to discuss any of the pending matters?
Reading only the newspapers I could not establish exactly when Jafta supposedly only started getting concerned, was it AFTER he heard about Hlophe’s discussion with Nkabinde or was it before? If after, I think that throws the allegation of a warning out of the window. Can someone please clarify this for me?
Mzo
It was after becuase Nkabinde got back intouch with him and told him waht he said to her thats when he got concerned.
Chris,
If that’s true, then whoever is saying Nkabinde was warned that Hlophe might attempt to influence her is lying!!
More from the Justice for Hlophe Alliance:
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=138236&sn=Detail
Mzo // Jul 31, 2009 at 3:53 pm
im afriad we need to find that out also what doesnt make sense is if jafta didnt warn her then who did? and if no one did then how did Nkabinde know to contact jafta afterwords?.
but i did read in a statement and i think it was jafta himself that he personnal phoned Nkabinde, but that raises me questions, then did hlophe speak to Jafta about contacting Nkabinde that hlophe was coming to see her about something?
you wanna hear my theory? what if all 3 of them are in on it? create such a huge splash about race and and zuma, becuase that was a hot topic that this would actually be there calling card to move up the ranks and Hlophe to get CJship, what other way then to create a fake battle to make urself a victim and get public support? I think we all be played to be honest with you
On a different note, a very sensible article by Helen Zille. For a change, no mention of the ANC, which makes it easier to understand the point made without having the die-hards diverting the attention.
Prof, is the problem she is talking about not exactly what led to Joe Slovo dwellers being moved to that “far away” place?
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=138237&sn=Detail
Prof. PdV wrote: “”
As one with zero formal law-training, I was arrogantly suggesting that,
given the incapacity in new-SA, a multitude of the opponent’s
‘irregularities’ doesn’t accumulate to a fatal flaw. What you need to provide
the Court with, is one SIMPLE argument based on statute or/and precedent.
BTW, what’s the current attitude to ‘time limits’ given the non funtioning
of many of new-SA’s institutions/systems ? Were difficult conditions
during WWII, acknowledged re. ‘time limits’ ? Is/was the extreme condition
of Zim-like hyper-inflation taken into account in Court – in any civilised
societies ?
Sandile Ngcobo. What was his role in the Zuma decision? He was the only one to dissent. Didn’t Hlophe visit Ngcobo before or after Nkabinde and Jafta? He could have phoned them, but a visit makes a much stronger point. Surely Hlophe’s aim was to get as many judges to dissent from the majority decision as possible. He wasn’t on a frolic of his own. He was martialling a group of dissenters. The JSC should interview Ngcobo on his role in the Zuma judgment.
Pierre, it is becoming increasing clear that you are driving a HLOPHEPHOBIA AGENDA!
Tony in Virginia // Jul 31, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“Clear as mud, Jafta is doing another Mpshe. Zuma is the one to decide who gets the CC job and Jafta knows which side his bread is buttered.”
Well, of course Chris Jaftha is (was?) a good friend of Hlophe before the incident. Why should anyone, including the JSC, believe him if he so readily change his tune in this regard?
I am sure that you are aware that a schism exists between African legal professionals and white legal professionals. Most African legal professionals believe that the constitutional court judges acted arrogantly, hastily and improperly where Hhlope is concerned. White legal professionals want Hhlope’s scalp and are castigating him every chance they get. The JSC is aware of the above and will act accordingly. The more Hhlope is attached, the more African legal professionals will come to his defence. The attacks on him, like the attacks of Zuma, are counter productive. White professionals and the white media are making Hhlope a martyr.
C Vaughn // Aug 1, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Say, what!! … In case you didn’t notice, the key players among the CC judges were BLACK!! So the JSC (with black profesionals on the rampage) is gonna choose BLACK above BLACK! Sheesz!
C Vaughn // Aug 1, 2009 at 4:50 pm
“The JSC is aware of the above and will act accordingly.”
Im sure they will lets have a look
Hlophe needs 12 of 23 votes to avoid impeachment
Hlophe’s Cheerleaders
Mvuseni Ngubane
Andiswa Ndoni
8 ANC = Cecil Burgess, Fatima Chohan, Ngoako Ramatlhodi, Mninwa Mahlangu , Bertha Mabe , Thalefi Mashamaite, Grace Boroto, Jeff Radebe
Vas Soni
Men of integrity cheerleaders
Pius Langa
Lex Mpati
Bernard Ngoepe
Marumo Moerane
Ismail Semenya
Julian von Klemperer
Milton Seligson
Hendrik Schmidt
Koos van der Merwe
Patricia de Lille
the swing votes
Ntsebeza
Johann Neethling
Now vaughn there are black people in the JSC who are against the appointment of Hlophe. The colors are actually blurred, there is not a fixed white people against hlophe and a fixed black people for hlophe. so Vaughn i beg of you grow up step into the modern world, and stop your stoneage outlook at life. the whole white legal profession is not out to get hlophe, please provide evidence on that, give names and give me quotes on every entire white law professional who hates hlophe and wants him gone before making such stupid statements.
if you had a look at the jsc investigation its all black and last time i checked Nkabinde is black. a black complaint on a black person
and im sorry i find your little story complete b.s you cant even provide the judges name…please just catch a wake up. How can people be this messed up in the head? vaughn your a joke dude
C Vaughn // Aug 1, 2009 at 4:50 pm
one more thing Vaughny boy on counter productive, we should rather be looking at people like Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke who is being groomed to take over instead people like you are more concerned with how white people are victimizing this apparently demigod of a legal miracle that has graced and blessed south africa but instead your precious one has thrown the judiciary into chaos and a soapy and seeks to divide it on race. well done vaughn you must be so proud.
but instead Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke who is 62yrs old has a service to his community un matched by anyone in the judiciary, who doesnt seek to divide the judiciary on RACE! there have been no allegations of conflicts of interests no allegations on how the CC judges are racist
The only service to humanity you and hlophe can manofest up is that the entire white legal profession and the media who is somehow all controlled by white people (SABC, MDDA…..the only reason why media is dominated by white people is funding, the only reason why SABC and MDDA fail is because of lack of funding by the government and support structures and create compatition to challange the so called big four media houses but yet its always the white mans fault) – wow such powerful contribution.
C Vaughn – read http://www.news24.com/Content/Columnists/MaxduPreez/1033/4140cd03c8b7438f84d7eabb0cade9e7/05-08-2009%2009-08/Non-racial_country_Non-sense