Maybe I should stop making jokes about Bloemfontein and the poor judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) stuck in that town once memorably called “the k@kest place on earth” in a David Kramer song. Today 9 judges of the SCA – writing as “The Court” – upheld the appeal by the judges of the Constitutional Court against the Gauteng High Court judgment in favour of Judge President John Hlophe.
The judgment of the SCA is a object of great beauty. Concise, erudite and forensically sharp, it demolishes the arguments of the High Court with quiet dignity and towering authority. But reading between the lines it represents a stern rebuke of Hlophe and his legal/political strategy aimed at averting attention from the substantive issues involved in the JSC complaint against him. (He has obviously been taught a thing or two by Zuma and his lawyers.)
First, the SCA reminds us that the original object of the Hlophe application was to “obtain a finding that the entire process before the JSC was tainted and that his only remedy was a dismissal of the complaint”. When commentators pointed this out after the High Court judgment and said that his victory was a Pyrrhic one because it had failed to stop the JSC inquiry, they were called racists by Hlophe’s lawyers. The SCA judgment reminds us that the “racists” were therefore correct to point out that the aim of Hlophe’s application was to stop the JSC hearing and that he had failed to achieve this. It also reminds us that Hlophe’s lawyers were more than cavalier with the truth and that they used the race card to try and paper over inconvenient truths.
Second, like the High Court, the SCA also rejected the basis of the Hlophe application, namely that the judges of the CC had acted “as a court” when it laid a complaint against him and made this public. Then the SCA comments rather dryly:
That should have been the end of the matter… The finding that the appellants had not acted institutionally meant ineluctably that the respondent’s cause of action fell away. The duty to hear a person was at common law always limited to judicial or some administrative organs; and a person acting in a private capacity has never had such a duty. The Constitution is not different. . . Since the appellants did not ‘act as a court’ the fair trial provision did not arise and since they did not act as an administrative body the administrative justice provision did not apply either.
The SCA is not kind to the majority judgment in the High Court, pointing out – as I have argued on this Blog – that “[t]he reasoning of the high court is difficult to encapsulate neatly especially in the light of what would appear to be some inconsistencies and conflicting findings”. The Court then proceeds to note in a rather understated but biting way that “it is not readily apparent to us on what legal grounds [the orders of the High Court] were founded”.
The SCA points out that there was no authority anywhere in the world that obliges complainant judges not acting as a court but acting as individuals to invite a judge to be heard before laying a charge. “Indeed, the authorities all say the opposite… and a rule to that effect would be absurd, because it would altogether undermine the process of investigating complaints.” Although there is an overarching duty on judges to preserve the dignity of the judicial institution, and judges must act with circumspection when laying a complaint against a fellow judge, there is clearly no legal rule or principle that places an absolute prohibition on judges from laying a complaint against a fellow judge and making this public and the High Court was wrong for in effect making such a finding.
This might appear to constitute a subtle rebuke of the CC for making the complaint public, but the SCA then proceeds to find that “there is much to be said for the contrary proposition (bearing in mind the circumstances in which it occurred) that the constitutional imperatives of transparency obliged [the CC] to make the fact [that a complaint was laid] known”. Quoting from the CC heads of arguments the SCA concluded:
In the circumstances where the independence of the Constitutional Court had been threatened and the integrity of the administration of justice in South Africa generally, it was considered imperative and appropriate that this be publicly disclosed. Should the facts have emerged at a later stage there would have been a serious risk that the litigants involved in the relevant cases and the general public would have entertained misgivings about the outcome and the manner in which the decisions were reached. It was especially important that the litigants and the general public were informed of the attempt and that the Constitutional Court had not succumbed to it.
The most damaging aspect of the judgment from Hlophe’s perspective can be found in the passages where the SCA points out that the duty on judges to act with circumspection when laying charges against a fellow judge are “not imposed upon a judge for the protection of the personal interests of other judges but for the protection of the institution in the interests of the public at large”.
And in this case the respondent does not purport to be asserting the interest of the public in the protection of the judicial institution, which he would have had no proper grounds for doing, but is asserting instead the protection of his personal interests. The court below seems to us to have blurred that distinction, and in that respect we think it erred, when it said in its judgment that the right that he sought to assert was a right that ‘is asserted in favour of the applicant as a member of the judiciary’.
This seems to me like a subtle but devastating rebuke to Hlophe as it suggests that his application had nothing to do with the interest of the judiciary and everything with his own selfish interests. As the SCA points out it “will always be distressing for a judge to learn in the media that he or she has been accused of misconduct but that seems to us to be an inevitable hazard of holding public office”.
The remedy that is available to a judge who finds that he or she is in that position is to insist that the body charged with investigating such a complaint does so with expedition so as to clear his or her name. Nor should it be thought that such accusations may be made with impunity: a judge, like any member of the public, is entitled to the consolation of damages for defamation if the publication of the statement cannot be justified.
So, in effect the SCA has found that if Hlophe was aggrieved by the statements made by the CC judges he could always sue them for defamation. The CC judges would then be required to show that their statements were true and that it was in the public interest to make them. In my opinion this is a masterstroke as it invites Hlophe to sue the CC judges for defamation if he thinks that what they said about him was untrue.
Now Hlophe has of course threatened to sue the CC judges (but he has NOT actually sued them – a fact often wrongly reported in the media) and, I will bet one months salary that he never will. Oscar Wilde was ruined when he launched a defamation case against the father of his lover and since then many a man (hallo Ronald Suresh Roberts) and the odd woman (hallo Jani Allen!) have been ruined after suing for defamation – only to have their reputation completely and utterly ruined.
I am glad this sorry saga is now over and that the JSC can now deal with the matter as speedily as possible. It would have been even better if the JSC had not decided to hold the hearing in secret, given the fact that the various versions of events are all in the public domain, and the great need for openness and transparency to restore confidence in the judiciary. It was an unwise decision and I sincerely hope the media houses challenge this decision in court.
um didnt the court say its in the publics interest to have this public? therefore the JSC hearing should be public, however im awaitng the decision by the JSC why this wont be made public
The most “amusing” line I found in the judgment was definitely para: 39, which reads: “It has been difficult to pin down precisely where the rights that are asserted by the respondent are said to be sourced… A court cannot overlook what was said by Kentridge AJ in the earliest case that came before the CC, namely that ‘it cannot be too strongly stressed that the Constitution does not mean whatever we choose it to mean.’ ”
Now there’s something for Judge Hlophe to complain about… again!
“and that they used the race card to try and paper over inconvenient truths”
Par for the course nowadays isn’t it?
I have never said the CC should not have gone public. It never was and will never be an issue of secrecy.
As I said before : why did the CC act in whistle blowing mode – they demonstrated a lack of confidence in the JSC, a lack of confidence now confirmed and upheld by the SCA overturning our high court.
So : we have this constant tug of war between the SCA and the rest of the judicial system. The SCA headed by the impeccable Judge Harms who doesn’t see any conspiracies, despite all contrary evidence just as he had trouble recognizing a CCB operative during the Harms commission, the same SCA who ruled in favor of Wouter Basson.
yeeesh – but we should all have “confidence” in the judiciary lol
“As the SCA points out it “will always be distressing for a judge to learn in the media that he or she has been accused of misconduct but that seems to us to be an inevitable hazard of holding public office”.”
I bet it is damn distressing – especially when it comes from your own colleagues who decides to run to media instead of following the recognized protocol.
Prof, Bloem is darem nie so bad nie…
The SCA did not “rule in favour of Wouter Basson”. Wouter Basson was acquitted by a High Court judge.
Neither is judge Harms at head of the SCA.
Ozone, the CC judges did follow the correct protocol – they laid a complaint with the JSC. They then made a statement in the public domain which stated the facts. The reasoning they gave for this was logical – if they didn’t say anything, and then the statements came to light, it would look like a cover up, and rumours would abound. With the facts in the public domain, there is no such room for this to happen.
Hlophe is just upset because he got caught out red handed, and by going public the CC judges effectively cut him off at the knees – he couldn’t run around behind closed doors and try to work his magic anymore. I know, I know, I have no proof of that, but it seems like a plausible theory to me.
At any rate, you can’t pick and choose when to have faith in the judiciary and when not to have faith in it. The judiciary were crucified by the ANC until Nicholson found in favour of Zuma – then the judiciary was fantastic. Nobody in the ANC made a squeak when Hlophe granted Oasis permission to sue a colleague on the bench when Hlophe had been receiving payments from Oasis. It would therefore seem to me that when you and your ANC comrades speak of the integrity of the judiciary, it would mean the judiciary taking decisions that serve the ANC and it’s members?
The JSC is not part of the judiciary per se either – so even if your very random argument that the CC judges did not have faith in it is true, it is irrelevant. It is not a court of law. That being said, the CC judges clearly do have faith in it, as they laid a complaint in the prescribed manner with the JSC. You don’t go around expecting results from an institution you have no faith in, and laying a complaint would indicate to me that they expect results, one way or another.
Additionally, how the SCA overturning the High Court indicates a lack of faith in the JSC (if I understand your posting) is beyond me, but it seems perfectly reasonable that the Supreme Court of APPEALS overturns a lower court decision – after all, isn’t that what it is there for? And as I understand it, a lower court may grant leave to appeal if there is reasonable prospect of a higher court reaching a different verdict? So the High Court would have given permission to the judges to appeal to the SCA – if my understanding is correct, this would then imply, to follow your logic, that the High Court doesn’t have faith in itself?
Lets just fire the lot of them (except Nicholson), and deploy some loyal cadres to hear cases – that should sort out these niggling issues with the integrity of the judiciary.
While we’re at it, we could also nationalise all privately owned land, and set up work communes…and build a statue of Lenin somewhere…I digress!
Hlophe is trying to detract from the real issue at hand (this is a common theme with our higher-ups) – that being that he tried to influence the CC judges. Even if his right to dignity, or whatever other rights he’s claiming, were infringed, there is still a case to answer. Now that the SCA has found that his rights were not infringed, hopefully the bullshit smoke and mirrors game will stop, and the JSC can deal with the issue at hand.
Some of us have come to expect nothing less from the SCA. Langa gave them instructions through a Business Day article that they must rule against Hlope, and if he appeals the Constitutional Court will recuse itself and that will be the end of the matter. Some of us are not idiots and we will deal with these counter-revolutionary judges when the time comes. Have fun now, but beware the 22nd of April!!!
Pierre De Vos @ 5:58 pm
O really. And didn’t the SCA dismiss the state’s application for leave to appeal ? Siding with a mass killer because of some technicalities ?
The Big Slipper @ 6:42 pm
“You don’t go around expecting results from an institution you have no faith in,.”
No all you do is run to the media at the same time just to make sure that the complaint doesn’t somehow get lost in a shredder ?
Seriously – stop insulting our intelligence. The CC has no confidence in the JSC just as PdV and the SCA has no confidence in the higher courts. The only people who are fully trustworthy are those white guys like Harms who ran the show during Apartheid and who helped to wash the dirty laundry when it fell.
It’s “surprising” that PdV has NO OPINION about Hlope’s hearing not being public. Why? It’s precisely because he knows that Langa and Moseneke won’t survive the embarrasment after spectactularly “forcing” Nkabinde and Jafta to be complainants. C’mon PdV! What’s your opinion on the public hearings. Is it not “IRONIC” that the JSC wants to protect the integrity of the office(s), whereas the SCA feels “going public” does not compromise any office(s). A bit of a contradiction isn’t it? So Hlope might be right according to JSC. I wait to see.
I think it is a very good judgement. It dealt with the issues cleanly and crisply. It is also a very easy read, very easy to follow the reasoning of the judges.
What struck my about the judgement is that it was very respectful to all the parties involved. It didn’t contain any of Harms’s usual sarcasm and stinging rebukes. For instance it referred to the junior counsel’s “valiant ” attempts at resuscitating an argument.
I also like the fact that it clearly spelled out what exactly the Judge President’s remedy is – to insist that the matter be dealt with as expedient as possible by the JSC and if the allegations were then found to have been untrue, to sue for defamation. Its just a pity that his lawyers did not give him this advice.
Ozoneblue,
Stop now with the sour grapes. Wouter Basson has got nothing to do with this case.
But don’t despair the CC judges case against the JP might still fall apart at the JSC and even if it doesn’t, it is highly unlikely that the National Assembly will vote against the JP.
To my mind the CC Judges did blunder a little.
Why did they prepare a press release? They should simply have finalised their complaint to the JSC and then published that. Also, tactically, they should have obtained a signed statement from Nkabinde and Jafta first – unles they had alerady signed the complaint.
Anyhow, it doesn’t matter now.
Hope Langa and Moseneke have listened closely for the mild background buzz of the tapped phone – any indiscretions might well emerge in last minute “representations”.
Ozenblue – your high pitched whining here doesn’t make sense. The national assembly is unlikely to fire slippery Hlopes after what he tried to do for JZ, and you will be gloating smugly in the end.
PS – hearing open to media and public!
Peter @ 9:42 pm
You must have misunderstood me then. This is not about Hlope – it is about a lack of confidence in the judiciary.
Snowman @ 8:43 pm
Exactly.
But PdV will tell you the more you feature on the front page of “Die Son” – the better the chances that constitutional experts, constitutional judges and constitutional call-girls have of inspiring public confidence in the credibility of our constitution, our justice system and our brave new democracy.
The JSC will hold a hearing in public as a result of a High Court ruling, by the way. Anyway, I dont understand why is Pierre De Vos such a staunch supporter of the ‘ Court of Public Opinion’ or the so called ‘Trial by the Media’. Him, Hellen Zille, FF PLUS, etc. I m dying to hear your reaction to the Electoral Court decision to allow Winnie Mandela on the list as you have argued against it before. Could it be because of the ‘black judge’ who happens to be one of the SCA judges that an ANC-friendly decision is made? Lets see!…Maybe he wants a promotion or something hey? Or maybe the ANC doesnt have such “bad lawyers” as some said before. I mean, look at the speculation on the Zuma case, some Senior Members of the bench of the Court of Public Opinion, are already branding any decision in Zuma s favour illegal – even before such has been made. Yet these “experts” are very worried about the rule of law. What is even more provocative is that unlike on Mark Thetcher, or somthin lyk dat, and Andrian Vlok, full disclosure of the reasons NOT to prosecute (MUST) be made public in the Zuma case. Prof, as a lecturer, please unpack to me what do you understand by Equality before the Law firstly, and seKondly- (following my friend who happens to ve been the only black General, B. H, usually pronounces the word ‘secondly’) Why have you, Prof, always lambasted Zuma for using his legal right to use the courts to fight his battles? I seriously have a problem, in fact, I deeply pained by the double standards used by you Judges of the Court of Public Opinion, it is in fact people like yourselves and Zille, who would actually turn this country into the so-called ‘Banana Republic’ or rather ‘Potatoe Republic’ seeing that we have more potatoes in Africa than bananas!
“Did you know that Bantu Holomisa was the only black General in the Apartheid era?”…just a quote from a chapies paper. Feel free to contest it! I m just the messenger, only born in 1984, what would I know apartheid and its Generals really¿
Ozoneblue, the double standard employed by you is breathtaking and revealing. Zuma is innocent until proven guilty despite never having been acquitted by any court while Wouter Basson is a mass murderer despite having been acquitted by a court. Just goes to show, this innocence until proven guilty you go on about is just a ruse. Why dont you just admit that even if Zuma is guilty of mass murder you wil support him. At least then you will be intellectually consistent and honest. I happen to agree with you that morally Wouter Basson – like Zuma – has a lot to answer for despite having been acquitted. Biut you have always disagreed with me on this as far as Zuma is concerned – now I see you have a different satndard for others like Basson and that is exactly what I have been complaining about: the double standard that treats Zuma better than anyone else. It’s the way of tyrnnay and oppression my brother and when they come for you in the middle of the night it will be too late to admit that I was right. You claim to believe in innocent until proven guilty – but only for Zuma and that shows no logic or reason is involved in your arguments. You have heart, but sadly no head. And the former without the latter is a very dangerous thing. Just ask Goebbels or Albert Speer. In any case, once acquitted the state cannot appeal the acquittal so there was no appeal in the Basson case. The case dealt with whether the judge in the High Court should have recused himself because of bias and was dismissed by the Constitutional Court.
Realisticallyspeaking, a pair of new glasses is in order for you. Please read the last two paragraphs of the post to see that I am very much opposed to the secret JSC hearing. Maybe you missed it or maybe you are just visually impaired?
Shakira, my thoughts exactly: a very balanced and fair judgment but not one shying away from the hard legal facts.
Spuy, I have not yet read the Electoral Court judgment so cannot say whether it is cogent and logical or absurd. My view differs from that of the Court but I would be interesting to see if they have made a good argument. Its sad that people like you undermine the judiciary by always referring to race (except of course when the judges are black and they find against your view and then you find another way to insult them). Criticise judges and judgments by all means, but your tired and bitter diatriabes against people based on their race just shows that you are a prisoner of an apartheid mindset. If you send me your postal details I will send you a copy of Biko’s “I Write What I like”. It will maybe help to treat your psychosis induced by the apartheid masters..
Pierre De Vos @ 10:50 pm
“Why dont you just admit that even if Zuma is guilty of mass murder you wil support him.”
I would say that is a rather bizarre inference to draw from anything I have said in here. Ironically Zuma was the one who has been credited to bringing peace to Kwazulu-Natal as he was the one who was instrumental in brokering peace in Burundi. But as we know the civil war adverted in Kwazulu doesn’t count cause as long as we have leaders who are not “corrupt” that was more than enough to guarantee success – just as “not-corrupt” is the most important qualification on your CV if you want to be a good brain surgeon, a nuclear scientist or an constitutional expert.
I fact why don’t we just scrap all formal academic and professional education and send all our kids to the Harvard school of business ethics.
Ozoneblue
“I fact why don’t we just scrap all formal academic and professional education and send all our kids to the Harvard school of business ethics.”
Well that would be a start
you would get educated leaders hell look what Harvard did for Obama.
but rather ask your governments to build you a Harvard here instead of buying weapons just a thought.
Ozoneblue & Spey, your argument doesn’t carry water.
Basically you’re saying that eleven CC judges, two acting CC judges, nine SCA judges and two High Court judges are wrong and the three High Court judges are correct by saying that Hlope should have had a hearing before a complaint is laid against him and that the said complaint cannot be made public before such a hearing?!
Seriously, wake up! This is not just your nemesis Harms DP’s judgement. But a bench of NINE SCA judges (try this at home, count the number of fingers your hands, you’ll realise there are ten. Subtract one; the number will make sense then.) that found in favour of a collection of what is supposed to be some of the best legal minds in the Republic.
If you disagree with the judgement, please supply a logical rational argument, not your usual “anti-revolutionary” or racist or Harms’ non-conspiracy theory. Surely you would be able to provide a logical rational argument based in law as to why the above mentioned group of judges are wrong
why are we arguing this? SCA made its judgement so they must deal with it now. Move on to the real issue of hlophe trying to influence 2 judges.
If they want to bring in racist remarks let them shows us there charactor instead of admitting they were wrong and eating humble pie. Thats there issues leave them….just soar graps
George Gildenhuys has to me closed the debate in law and logic, after all law is common sense. Anyone argueing against common sense has lost the debate completely!
Thats what happens when you read a judgement and not studying it Ozoneblue.
Hlophe blundered and was not smart enough a lawyer to cover his tracks. He left huge footprints that you could see from miles away. Even Yengeni displayed the same gung-ho approach until he fell and the Sunday Times full page adverts did not help.
Like Ozoneblue, Hlophe had his right in the right place to help Cde JZ, but went about it the wrong way. Just shows that he is a lousy lawyer coz good ones know how to cover their tracks, its called ‘tricks of the game’.
And then he used Cde D Omar’s name in vain, when he was caught with some extra cash. Now he says he is sick to attend the JSC hearing. Its a script for a soapy and not such an emotional issue.
Hlophe needs a good lawyer and that he is also facing a law suit from a fellow colleague running into several millions. Typical as a lousy lawyer he is fighting on three fronts(Suit, CC and JSC).
I hope that Dumisa Ntsebenza will counsel him after he retired in the SCA and handed over to a junior, he ran out of ideas because there was no case to be made, in the first instance. Now he wants to further compound the matter by appealing what his SC could not argue at the SCA? Ntsebeza threw in the towel. Now he has a new set of lawyers for the JSC?
Thanks George for yr lucid posting!
Prof, I dont know why you always chose abusive language when differed with. Anyway, The point I was trying to make is that we must be consistent, if Mark Thetcher or Andriaan Vlok, were not prosecuted further and No Full discluse was given, why should the contrary apply in Zuma s case? My fear is that people like you Prof, will always want our institutions be controlled by the Court of Public Opinion. And by the way, why is it always such a touchy subject when a person race is mentioned to advance a point in an argument? You do it yourself at times moes!
So Hlophe can’t attend today’s hearing because he is sick. Evidently a mischievous bout of influenza. Any comments?
Niel maybe he has hypertension and is in the last phase of his life
ozoneblue // Mar 31, 2009 at 5:28 pm
“The SCA headed by the impeccable Judge Harms who doesn’t see any conspiracies, despite all contrary evidence…….”
What contrary evidence? The Nicholson judgement was overturned because there was no evidence to back up the findings of the Nicholson judgement. Maybe you can point out the evidence. I am sure JZ will be grateful.
Realisticallyspeaking // Mar 31, 2009 at 6:50 pm
“………..counter-revolutionary judges when the time comes. Have fun now, but beware the 22nd of April!!!”
I like the term counter revolutionary because it seems to mean anything we want it to mean. Do you think that we can now call the ANC counter revolutionary for not allowing the Dalai Lama to visit South Africa? He is a revolutionist after all (although a non violent one).
His country was occupied by China and South Africa has refused him a space to bring attention to this plight. Surely, even with a very narrow interpretation of counter revolutionary, it makes the ANC a counter revolutionary.
I have heard both Trevor Manuel and Pallo Jordan, two people I thought were among the most reasoned in the ANC, defend the decision of the government by stating that China is right and insinuate that the Dalai Lama is a terrorist – Really sad day for all South Africans.
Spuy // Apr 1, 2009 at 11:47 am
“Anyway, The point I was trying to make is that we must be consistent, if Mark Thetcher or Andriaan Vlok, were not prosecuted further and No Full discluse was given, why should the contrary apply in Zuma s case?”
Mark Thatcher and Adriaan Volk were prosecuted. They plea bargained and were accordingly sentenced. You need to understand the full context of plea bargains before criticise it, as it is very dynamic.
Spuy, even Thatcher and Adriaan Vlok ADMITTED GUILT and then completely in accordance with THE LAW, they were given a plea bargain SANCTIONED BY A COURT! What we fear will happen here is that an illegal decision will be taken to drop charges against Zuma despite there being a winnable case against him, thus undermining the Rule of Law. You are comparing apples and pears.
“I have now been informed that instructions have been taken to bring an application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court”, said Vuyani Ngalwana at the stuttering start to the Judicial Service Commission’s hearing on the complaint at a Johannesburg hotel.
http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=972220
Really?
Maybe Hlophe is trying to delay the hearing of his case until Zuma is the President of South Africa. How many others are pinning their fates on a Zuma presidency?
Thanks Prof, I appreciate your rather fair and non-abusive response. Be that as it may – I still believe the NPA is succumbing to Public Opinion court by undertaking to give reasons, should they drop charges. My guess is no reasons will be given or needed if they continue to proceed. Honestly ask yourselves this: If it werent Zuma, would still be feeling the same way? No – I put it to you. So, indeed this is not about Equality before the Law. Let us talk principle here, you ll see I m right.
Its incredible how Oz and Spuy twist the facts to suit themselves. Spuy, its plain dishonest to argue that Vlok and Thatcher were not prosecuted and if you’re not sure say so or don’t mention it.
How about a plea baragin from the great JZ? If he did that and took his punishment I’d vote for the ANC on 22 April
Glouty @ 1:11 pm
I suppose, like Harms, you won’t see any evidence even if it bit you in butt – especially if you didn’t read the M&G recently.
Lets wait until Friday and then see what the NPA damage control exercise is going to look like – hey ? I’m sure PdV will be bouncing online in a jiffy hoping to spinning it all for you so that you don’t have to face up to facts.
spuy
“Let us talk principle here”
I think thats a new concept for the Mass’s
JZ has goods on people principle would be to tell the truth and do the honourable thing step down and clear his name
Principle is not about trying to black mail the NPA
Principle of someone in the public sector will have to understand that whatever that person does the public is intitled to know that is the nature of the beast esp for someone who is about to become president.
It is the citizens rights of south africa to scrutinize and hold there leaders to account.
if it werent Zuma and someone else in his position the country would still do the same, case in point shaiks and Hlophe
even Zillie, Del Lille and Buthelezi and Lekota and Malema
But if your refering to the amount of tax payers funds Zuma has access to stay out of courts then no you are right not equal before the law
ozoneblue // Apr 1, 2009 at 2:16 pm
the guy asked you a question what evidence do have on a conspiracy theory?
actual facts please
P.S you quite the sore loser hey just a few weeks back you told us to accept the high court judgement on hlophe but now the tables are turned and you cant eat humble pie tsk tsk troll must be hard being on the losing team hey?
if you want i can pull out statements about what you said about the high court and to all of us??
George Gildenhuys @ 9:36 am
“Basically you’re saying that eleven CC judges, two acting CC judges, nine SCA judges and two High Court judges are wrong and the three High Court judges are correct by saying that Hlope should have had a hearing before a complaint is laid against him and that the said complaint cannot be made public before such a hearing?!”
I said nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out of a professional “colleague” of mine ran to the media instead of confronting me if he had a problem I would be rather pissed off. But Pierre doesn’t seem to have an inkling of decorum or ethics in his frail academically bones either or perhaps that is how colleague stab each other in the back where he works. Glad I’m not a colleague of his.
I also pointed out that the CC, by resorting to whistle blowing tactics, demonstrated a shocking lack of confidence in the JSC.
Chris Mcdaniel @ 2:16 pm
As I pointed out many times there is plenty of circumstantial evidence – some of which even Nicholson found to be enough to point to a conspiracy.
But hey – lets just stick our heads in the sand like a Harms would do. Fark how that oke can have ANY credibility after the Harms commission white–wash is really beyond me. How we can even talk about Harms sitting as deputy of the SCA in 2009 is really a sad joke. Monty Python pales in comparison when it comes to dark humor and satire.
Like I said – the NPA chickens are coming to roost now. But come Friday PdV will be online again with his trademark hand wringing and um and ah apologies trying to polish the turd.
The point has been raised before that there is a problem with the legislation dealing with the impeachment of a judge (not to pre-empt any findings of the JSC). This is that Parliament must ratify the impeachment, with a two-thirds majority.
this means that the ANC can block his impeachment, even if they have a reduced majority after the election.
However, would it not be untenable for the J-P to continue after a recommendation of impeachment?
Ozone
No you havnt all you being doing is saying there are circumstantial evidence
again we are asking what are these circumstantial evidence? I want a direct answer with facts and law references if possiable to back your claims
Come on I wanna see what you got, cos all i see is someone who is a bad loser
You seem very confident the NPA will drop chargers??? but you dont seem to think what the implications of this would be if the NPA drops chargers how damaging this could actually be? would you rather enjoy having a tainted president or a tainted NPA? wheres your priorities?
Ozoneblue as a mate here yeh all things aside you have to know now you dont know much about law but much respect for keeping on trying
“shocking lack of confidence in the JSC”
to say this is just your opinion but it does not reflect the reality of the situation which im sure its still trying to sink in with u but Hlophe showed shocking lack towards the JSC not the other way round with the CC judges as the SCA ruled…this should never have landed up in the courts, who brought this to the courts? the correct process was with the JSC which the CC judges did but hlophe thought otherwise.
This is the reality please soak it in slowly if you have to but soak it in
@ozoneblue
…trying to polish the turd.
That’s quite funny, coming from someone trying to buff the naked heads of Zuma and Hlope.
Ozone blue I cant help but think you are confusing complaint with attacks.
airing a complaint is completely lawful even in the media it is not degrading, it is not insulting or anything monsterious
however if it was an attack by the CC judges on Hlophe well then thats a different ball game and i would be supporting your arguments.
But as it is mentioned if Hlophe was not happy about the complaints there are remedies for him through the JSC but he decided to take this to court and lost
Ozoneblue, one question: why is “circumstantial evidence” enough for you to conclude that there is a conspiracy against Zuma, but overwhelming evidence – confirmed by the courts – of Zuma corruption is not sufficient because he is “innocent until proven guilty”? The case against Zuma is far more than circumstantial as we know as fact that he took R4 million from a crook, then did favours for that crook. Please explain…. Bonus points for sticking to the question.
Any Judicial Services Commission would convict Hlope based on Hlope’s own version of the story. His own version betrays a shocking lack of appreciation of his legal duties as a judge. One need not even read what the Concourt judges say he did. Just read what Hlope says and the matter rests!
nausea @ 3:07 pm
LOL.
Pierre De Vos @ 3:29 pm
Why are you so obsessed with one thing only, Pierre – the prosecution of Zuma ?
How many times do I have to tell you that I want, in the name of justice, everyone implicated in the arms-deal prosecuted : including but not limited to Tony Blair.
Why would that not happen PdV : because you know and I know that the international arms trade is one of the dirtiest businesses around and we are talking BIG TIME politics, complex international relationships and “national security”. Why is that – even when you know that Zuma was not the biggest “crook” but him and Shaik are probably the only ones who would get nailed in this witch hunt : you somehow feel that ethically and morally that would be a job well done ?
ozoneblue // Apr 1, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Ozone, I dont know about Pierre, but the reason I’m obsessed with the prosecution of Zuma is because he is most probably going to be my president and I have an obsession with knowing that my president is not tainted by corruption. And because he is obviously the people’s clear favourite for their leader I am also hoping that he is prosecuted and found not guilty beyond any doubt. I dont really care about Blair or Thint or father Christmas at this stage because they are not going to be my president. Not that they should not be prosecuted, they just aren’t part of my obsession because they’re not going to make a difference in my life or yours. (That is assuming you don’t still believe in father Christmas)
@ozoneblue // Mar 31, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Bliksem maar jy is darem ‘n groot rassis!!
Spuy @ 1:48pm – the answer is YES, we would be feeling the same way. This is what I keep saying – the ANC seems to have decided that this is a personal vendetta aginst Zuma. It is not – we merely want our leaders held accountable for their actions. I want to see Zuma answer charges as much as I want to see that skelm J. Arthur Brown from Fidentia answer charges for fraud. This is not about JZ – it is about right and wrong, and the calibre of leadership we want to see in this country.
Ozone @ 2:25 – picture this: The CC judges do not make a media statement. Through various actions, eventually it becomes known that the judges laid a complaint a while back, and it has been dealt with. If Hlophe was found innocent, the credibility of the CC and JSC would be in tatters – it would look like one big cover up. The CC did not defame the man (unlike he himself tends to do apparently), they did not criticise his abilities, they did not get personal – they merely issued a statement regarding the facts. In a democracy, when the judges of the highest court in the land lay a complaint about another senior judge, that’s what we’d call ‘public interest’ – as the public, we have a right to know, because we need to put our faith in these people. In addition, given that a stable legal system is a big plus on foreign investor scorecards, it helps to assure international investors that our judiciary is intact (I only mention this based on the ANC’s concern for upsetting our biggest trading partner – clearly upsetting foreign investors is important to them).
In all of this – Spuy, Ozone, Realisticallyspeaking this is for you – not one of Hlophe’s staunch defenders have actually commented on what HE did – it’s all about what other people did, and trying to make them look bad. Perhaps you three could comment on Hlophe’s actions in this situation – actions which he has basically admitted to? Do you think he should be vindicated?
The Big Slipper // Apr 1, 2009 at 6:32 pm Said :
In all of this – Spuy, Ozone, Realisticallyspeaking this is for you – not one of Hlophe’s staunch defenders have actually commented on what HE did – it’s all about what other people did, and trying to make them look bad. Perhaps you three could comment on Hlophe’s actions in this situation – actions which he has basically admitted to? Do you think he should be vindicated?
What is his case?
I don’t understand why the JP does not heed the advice of the SCA and make sure that the JSC deals with his case as expediently as possible. If it is true that Langa et al forced Nkabinde and Jafta to make oath against him then surely his attorney will make mince meat of them during cross examination?
The Big Slipper @ 6:32 pm
Now picture this. You lay a complaint with the JSC, give due notice to Hlope and convene a meeting with him and perhaps with the JSE present (as honored and respected colleagues) and one week later when you are disgruntled with the outcome of events you convene a media conference. What can possibly be wrong with that ?
Or should I also run to the police and the media every time I have a argument with my wife ?
ozoneblue@8.58
“Or should I also run to the police and the media every time I have a argument with my wife ?”
Possibly the most pathetic analogy I have ever read. The rest of the nation have absolutely zilch interest in your domestic squabbles. I think you’ll find quite a few of us are interested in the CC-Hlophe case.
For an illuminating and disturbing article on the prevailing culture of political renting by the JSC penned by a retired judge see -http://coginito.blogspot.com/2011/04/judicial-service-commission-political.html