Does any of the esteemed readers of this Blog have the email address of Judge President John Hlophe? I would really like to send him a copy of the Ethics Guidelines issued by the Chief Justice, the President of the SCA and the Judge Presidents of the various High Courts in South Africa in 2000. Pity one cannot send him a pair of reading glasses via email as well. He obviously needs them.
In today’s Mail & Guardian Hlophe contravenes several of these Guidelines which he is supposed to uphold. First, Hlophe comments on a pending case by stating that he believes Jacob Zuma was innocent despite the fact that an application to declare the dropping of charges against President Zuma is still pending and there is therefore still a possibility that Zuma may be tried.
(This is also quite a shocking statement for a judge to make as he – like the rest of us – had not heard any of the evidence and cannot possibly know whether President Zuma is guilty of any crime or not. He has therefore prejudged a case – a cardinal sin for any judge to make.)
Hlophe then attacks sitting judges and another branch of the judiciary by saying that there was a political conspiracy against him and that this conspiracy was led by Chief Justice Pius Langa and his deputy Dikgang Moseneke. This “conspiracy”, he claims, took shape the moment Hlophe made it clear that his colours were firmly nailed to the Zuma mast. He provides no evidence of this “conspiracy”.
(The scandalous double standard here is, of course, nothing less than we would expect of the Judge President. Hlophe himself has been fighting a long legal battle against the Constitutional Court judges because he claims they denigrated him and infringed his right to dignity by laying a complaint against him and making this public without immediately providing the necessary proof. This suggests that Hlophe does not think others have the same rights he claims are applicable to himself.)
He is also quoted as saying that Langa was serving “other political forces” when he laid a charge against Hlophe. “The old man should have stayed out of it and waited to retire,” he is quoted as saying. He then proceeds to attack the integrity and legitimacy of our highest court, saying that the Constitutional Court justices – which he calls “green ropes; white justice” – had “sold out” and that he would refuse to shake the hand of the Chief Justice because “I am not going to shake a white man’s hand.” (So much for respect of our Constitution which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race!)
These scandalous utterances are in clear contravention of the Ethics Guidelines. Guideline 31, for example, states:
Save in the discharge of judicial office, a judge should refrain from commenting on the merits of any case pending before that judge or in any other court. Unless necessary for or in judicial proceedings, a judge should refrain from public criticism of another judge or branch of the judiciary.
Guideline 32 states:
A judge ought to refrain from action which may be construed as a device to stifle legitimate criticism of that judge or any other judge.
Guideline 33 states:
A judge… should refrain from expressing views in a manner which may undermine the standing and integrity of the judiciary.
Hlophe also punts himself for Chief Justice, saying that appointing Justice Sandile Ngcobo as Chief Justice as a “stop-gap” Chief Justice would give Zuma’s enemies a chance to regroup. “I may get killed – I am not bullet-proof,” he is quoted as saying. This is in violation of Guideline 18 which states:
A judge should in respect of judicial activity refrain from any conduct that may be interpreted as personal advancement.
Of course we all know that Hlophe previously scandalously breached Guidelines 2 and 23 when he took money from Oasis, lied about it and then gave permission for Oasis to sue a fellow judge. Guideline 2 states that: “A judge should always, not only in the discharge of official duties, act honourably and in a manner befitting the judicial office. A judge should therefore never act improperly or disgracefully.” This means, says the guidelines that a judge should behave in a proper manner and should refrain from any act that can affect the trust in or respect for the judiciary.
Guideline 23 states: “A judge should not directly or indirectly accept any gift, advantage or privilege that can reasonably be perceived as being intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties or serve as a reward therefor.”
Maybe somewhere in South Africa there is still someone who honestly believes Judge President Hlophe is a man of integrity and honesty and that his “mere” breach of a litany of ethics guidelines should not disqualify him from holding judicial office. Maybe there is also someone out there who believes PW Botha was a charming misunderstood philanthropist. Maybe, somewhere out there someone still believes Bill Clinton did not have sex with “that woman, Miss Lewinsky”. There is no accounting for the moral failings and blindness of some of our fellow citizens.
I for one would not buy a second hand car from this man. He is a disgrace and an embarrasment to all South Africans and to himself. If he had any pride and respect for himself and others, and any respect for our democracy, he would resign as a judge and take up a political appointment. His skills as an ethically challenged and dishonest man might come in more handy and will be better appreciated in either the legislature or the executive.
Prof – “Does any of the esteemed readers of this Blog have the email address of Judge President John Hlophe?”
I am currently not in office (on leave), but I’m sure anyone in the Justice Department or on the DOJ & CD’s e-mail network would be able to furnish you with same from the global addressbook on their e-mail accounts.
With the rest of your post – I of course agree in every respect.
“Hlophe then attacks sitting judges and another branch of the judiciary by saying that there was a political conspiracy against him and that this conspiracy was led by Chief Justice Pius Langa and his deputy Dikgang Moseneke. This “conspiracy”, he claims, took shape the moment Hlophe made it clear that his colours were firmly nailed to the Zuma mast.”
so as a sitting judge he can also now be politically outspoken…. and Moseneke can get nailed for saying he is does not take instruction from Polokwane?
when will we be saved from this Malema of the judiciary.
He is no doubt ambitious. His ambition will be better suited in the ANC. Let him run for political office… that way we will at least not expect the high standards we expect from our judges.
Prof, these seem like rules of conduct and remind me of Lewis’ textbook on Legal ethics. It suggested that manners were invaluable, Hlophe JP would do well to learn that. I doubt the man is fit to be a judge, attorney or advocate as all of the above set marginally higher standards of conduct than those of other folk.
Excellent post.
I must of course assume that the commentators above have read the report in the M&G and satisied themselves that everything contained therein is factually correct. If not, I wonder how can is be described as an “excellent post”, relying as it does on a newspaper report without qualification whatsoever.
The irony is that I probably would agree with Prof regarding the breaching of the guidelines if only he had started his post by saying something like: “Assuming that the report is correct……”.
But no, anything in the newspaper, or anywhere for that matter, has to be correct so long as it paints Hlophe in a bad light. The only question in Prof’s mind is always, does it favour or is it against Hlophe? If the former, perhaps some deeper enquiry is needed but it the latter, it’s a given – it just has to be correct.
Pathetic really!!
Mzo, quite frankly I am surprised at the aspersions you cast on Sello Alcock who interviewed Hlophe for the Mail & Guardian (and obviously has the interview on tape). Will you agree with me if Hlophe does not issue a statement in the next 24 hours denying everything?
Mzo, it is shocking to see somebody of your caliber (and I base this on numerous previous comments from you on this blog which shows your intellectual capacity) continuously jumping to protect the JP. There’s an Afrikaans saying “waar daar `n rokie trek…”. With JP Hlope, there’s freaking smoke everywhere… Maybe you are so close to the JP that all the smoke is blurring your vision…
I’m sorry to say, but the statements made by the JP is shocking. Or rather, assuming that the report is correct, the statements allegedly made by the JP, is shocking. Pathetic!
No Prof, I am suprised at how you seem to be so eager and willing to take anything said against Hlophe as “gospel truth”. Have you been following some of the rulings from the Press Ombudsman lately and the appauling manner in which your dearest newpapers have been reporting lately. I doubt it because if you did I think you would be more restrained in how you approach their stories – although I suspect, even then, your rstraint will probably only apply whenever there is nothing negative being said about Hlophe.
Sometimes I understand why it is so easy for groups like that JFHA to ridicule whatever you say even when you are making valid points.
It makes no difference to me whether it’s Sello, Bbotyane, Paul or Hendrik who did the interview and this “reverse onus” you now seek to impose is, to repeat myself again, quite pathetic!
Mayflower // Aug 7, 2009 at 5:15 pm
“assuming that the report is correct, the statements allegedly made by the JP, is shocking. Pathetic!”
I do not understand what you are on about, about me “continuosly jumping to protect the JP”. You seem to later see my point, as evidenced by the statement I’ve quoted above. If you read my posts CORRECTLY you will see that I agree with the quoted line above. If the report is true, then he is difinitely in contravention of the Guidelines.
All I am against is the view you seem to endorse that, whatever allegation against Hlophe has to be true because with him there’s “freaking smoke everywhere”. I do not believe that our Constitution endorses such a view!!
By the way Mayflower, I do suspect that the Afrikaans phrase you quoted probably precedes the Constitution!!
I like the way the newspaper’s are only ever doubted by the ANC and it’s loyal minions when the report is negative and casts the ANC and it’s supporters in a bad light. Other than that, nobody seems to have a problem with newspapers – apparently they’re factually correct unless the facts are unpleasant to a particular grouping in society.
Mzo, with respect, the fact that you disregard the entire post PdV makes here based purely on the fact that PdV didn’t preface his post with some silly words is short-sighted to say the least. This is the kind of attitude that has led us to the cess-pit we find ourselves in today – instead of confronting the issues raised, the ANC has repeatedly chosen to deal with this kind of thing by shouting racism, colonialism, apartheid, and so forth.
On a probability basis, this newspaper report would seem correct. I say this because:
1. Hlophe is on record as having uttered racist comments towards lawyers (it might have been another judge, can’t remember offhand) in his courtroom. Fact.
2. By his own admission, Hlophe approached the CC judges in the middle of a case involving JZ, and made some statements which can be considered dubious (in terms of their intention) at best. Fact.
3. Hlophe moonlighted for a company, without receiving the requisite permission to do so. Fact.
4. Hlophe then granted that company permission to sue a fellow judge, in what can only be regarded as a flagrant breach of any known code of ethics, be it “western” ethics or the African value system of Ubuntu. Fact.
This is the context on which you must judge this report. It seems entirely plausible to me that this report is in fact extremely accurate – there is nothing in here that contradicts the Hlophe we have all come to know. Unless somebody here (Mzo?) wishes to contend that the above facts that I have listed are also untrue, and the man is in fact a little angel.
To defend Hlophe on the basis that this report is a newspaper report and therefore unreliable is a ridiculous point of view to take, and it is precisely this kind of “bury my head” mentality that has resulted in rampant corruption, mismanagement and service delivery failures in this country.
Mzo, I am trying to understand your position. Correct me if I am wrong, but as I interpret your argument, you believe it was wrong of me to comment on a range of statements reportedly made by John Hlophe because (i) it was published in a newspaper; (ii) newspapers often get it wrong; (iii) and the statements attributed to Hlophe might therefore very well have been invented by the journalist concerned and (iv) I should therefore have refrained from commenting on such statements until they had been verified as correct.
If this is indeed your position I have to respectfully disagree for the following reasons. (i) Like all Bloggers (and commentators and other citizens) I often comment about stuff reported in the newspapers and it would be impossible to comment on anything if I had to wait until every statement and factual report in a newspaper had been independently verified; (ii) In any case, who will verify these statements and reports and on what basis will one decide that the “true” facts have now emerged? (iii) Your view – which you only seem to hold viz Hlophe as you have not complained about me commenting on, say, Bheki Cele’s utterances or something reportedly said by Helen Zille – seems to me destructive and paranoid as it assumes journalists willfully make up stuff (even when they interview someone on tape recorder) and that it is impossible ever to believe anything one reads in a newspaper. If this were to be correct, why on earth would we read newspapers at all? (iv) Although one should be careful not to assume every last sentence in a newspaper is accurate (it is not), where a credible journalist with a proven track record and no obvious axe to grind interviews someone (and record, as is the practice at the Mail & Guardian, such an interview on tape) one should be able to take the report emanating from such an interview to be more or less accurate because if it is not and all the quotes are made up, it would constitute a gross abuse on the part of the journalist who should be fired forthwith for dishonesty. It is therefore not in the interest of a journalist to make up quotes in such a case as it would be detrimental to his or her career. Demanding proof of the accuracy of the statements therefore seems to amount to bias in favour of the person quoted as it assumes that the person may have been misquoted or that quotes were made up and requires a higher standard from journalists than from the interviewee.
Pierre, Mzo, et. al.:
Mzo:
The irony is that I probably would agree with Prof regarding the breaching of the guidelines if only he had started his post by saying something like: “Assuming that the report is correct……”.
Really, Mzo isn’t asking much, here. Mzo really doesn’t say that the newspaper report is likely wrong–indeed, all he does is point to the possibility.
Now, I think that the newspaper report is, most likely, correct–but there is always the chance that there is a mistake. If there is, I would expect (as Pierre points out) that the JP would complain about that mistake, and seek to have it corrected. And, indeed, if the JP does not complain (I’d be inclined to give him more than 24 hours, but certainly it is reasonable to set a relatively quick deadline–say a couple of days) I think it would be reasonable to assume that the JP feels that the reporting is honest and accurate.
So rather than rehash all of our prejudices (for and against) the JP, lets see what he does in the next day or so. Sort of like the death watch over our favorite financial adviser, right? (I mean, he could drop dead tomorrow…)
PM, I think this is a very sensible suggestion. I am very, very confident that, if the M&G report is not contested, Mzo will of course go on record as accepting the veracity therof. (Also, if only part of the report is contested, I am quite sure that Mzo will accept that those parts that are not contested are indeed correct.) Thanks again, PM, for your splendid solution to the always vexing problem of media accuracy!
PM
Thank you for your post. Hopefully Prof et al can now understand, finally, that I am not “defending” Hlophe or anyone. I am simple pointing out what I consider to be an error in Prof’s post. It appears that to the likes of Prof & The Big Slipper, by merely expressing a view perceived to be contrary to Prof’s, you are immediately categorised as an ANC member, as someone defending Hlophe etc. The irony of course is that The Big Slipper seems to be tired of what he calls the tendency of people to avoid issues and simply cry racism etc, and yet he is so quick to label people ANC members/supporters simply because they do not agree wholeheartedly with his rather skewed idea of what constitute facts and what doesn’t. Talk about double standards.
@The Big Slipper
I honestly don’t think it’s necessary for me to deal with your so-called “facts” because it would appear that the two of us are from different planets. I can only hope that you didn’t get your “facts” from what Prof calls “credible journalists”, because if you did I would even be more worried. You should try to read the source documents sometimes and not only rely on the newspapers – it does help in terms of knowing exactly what is a FACT and what is not.
I must, however, mention (to your suprise no doubt) that I actually agree with Prof (as I’ve said before) that IF THE REPORT IS ACCURATE then there is no doubt in my mind that Hlophe has breached the Guidelines and the JSC would do well to take the necessary steps to deal with his conduct. Since he is already before the Commission, they may just as well add more “charges” – I’m sure that will make the likes of Prof very happy and the likes of JFHA very unhappy.
@Prof
You have clearly miscontrued my issue with your post and I hope PM has now made it clearer for you. I am by no means suggesting that you should not comment on issues until they have been verified. I do, however, caution against you writing post on things reported in newspapers as if they were facts (which, admittedly, they may turn out to be) without even giving it a thought that the report might in fact be inaccurate. A simple liner alerting the unsuspecting reader to the fact that you are very much open to the possibility that the report might be inaccurate will really be useful. Or you don’t think so, not sensational enough for you!!
Your insinuation that I only complain when the report involves Hlophe is devoid of any truth. I have raised your “blind” reliance on newspapers before on this very blog (one issue that comes to mind is when we were discussing the issue of Thabo Mbeki and his supposed denial that HIV causes AIDS – I raised the same concerns there as well). You may have noted that I did not comment AT ALL on the Cele story and I would be suprised if you were to rely on that as proof that I somehow condoned your reckless tendency.
I’m sure I need not remind you about the famous “corrupt relationship”, which Squires J had to clarify (weeks if not months later – can’t remember – but certainly not in 24 hours). Guess what, the very same newspapers carried the story and made it look like a verbatim quote, which it never was. I again challenge you to consider the recent rulings by the Press Ombudsman so that you can see that I do not particularly have any gripe I just think that it is reckless of anyone to comment on them as if they are always accurate notwithstanding their previous actions. Only this week and last week, I referred to some of the ridiculous stories they carried, so my caution is not entirely (1) limited Hlophe issues or (2) aimed at stopping you from commenting on issues until they have been verified.
Hopefully now, with PM’s assistance, you are able to understand my point.
Michael Osborne // Aug 7, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I agree and I am relieved that there is at least one more person who was able to properly see that my issue was media accuracy as opposed to defending or condemning Hlophe.
Did Hlophe explain his reasons for sitting on thf New Clicks case?
Professor, yes, I happen to have the JP’s e-mail address right here: “Do.not.shake.white.hands@JFHA.co.za..” Glad I could be of assistance.
What are “green ropes”? Must surely have said “green robes” – Mzo – there you go, gross error number one – but also obviously proof of a transcription error.
All I can say is thank god Hlope is not (yet) a powerful politician. The damage he can inflict on the broader public as a judge is hopefully relatively limited. He certainly does get the populism thing.
And won’t shake hands with a white man? What the fuck!
Hmmm…interesting comments by everyone. Fact of the matter is, Hlophe will still go very far in this country. Nothing will deter his rise to the top, just wait and see.
As they say, cream rises to the top, but then again, so does s**t. There are other forces at work here (I wanted to say darker forces, but let’s not be churlish).
From a psychological perspective, Hlophe must have incredible self-esteem and a rock solid core belief system.
Most people, with the amount of negative (and quite rightly so) coverage that he has received, would have had the decency to quietly exit public life.
But alas, not Hlophe. In fact, rumour has it that he is already writing an autobiography, called: From Gardener to Judge.
Someone once quipped, that should things go pear shaped for Hlope, the follow up to the autobiography could be called: From Judge back to Gardener.
Ouch!
I am of the opinion that Hlophe is a symptom and not the disease. He is a product of the society that we find ourselves in and the reason he is still a topic is because in the bigger picture his behaviour is still largely acceptable. What is the damage in “nudging” a case in a direction that the masses would find acceptable? Is it wrong in the grand scheme of things?
JP BM Ngoepe said that it was irrelevant if judges are wrong (http://files.approver.com/public/thinkfirst01/7214/Complaint_Answer_Ebersohn_Seriti_NGoepe_Opinion_20090121.pdf). Is it not reasonable to think that it is also irrelevant if Hlophe is wrong?
All this nonsense is really a lot of effort to expend on issues that are born in the masses and represented in the highest offices of this country. For instance, is it ethical for a public servant to purchase million-rand official vehicles when poverty is the biggest problem we face? How efficient would it be to micro-manage ethics in an environment where the norm does not necessarily support it?
It seems we strive to protect the judiciary against Hlophe, but I am not convinced that he is the biggest threat? I wonder if it is not crucial to audit the entire bench for their understanding and application of ethics.
“Mzo // Aug 7, 2009 at 5:34 pm
By the way Mayflower, I do suspect that the Afrikaans phrase you quoted probably precedes the Constitution!!”
Yes Mzo, ans so does logic…
“PM // Aug 7, 2009 at 7:33 pm
So rather than rehash all of our prejudices (for and against) the JP, lets see what he does in the next day or so. Sort of like the death watch over our favorite financial adviser, right? (I mean, he could drop dead tomorrow…)”
Not all comments are based on prejudices, PM.
As a general (subjective) observation, most people have been blessed with the ability to think rationally – why then this eagerness by so many people to rather allow political correctness, or whatever you want to call it, to cloud their ability? Having said that, I take Mzo’s (and PM’s) point that there is a possibility that this report on the JP is factually incorrect, but given all the pre-constitutionally inspired “smoke” that I referred to earlier, I remain of the opinion that the JP lacks the moral fiber to continue to hold judicial office. I also remain shocked by the statements he purportedly made and I remain of the opinion that, should our favorite financial advisor drop dead tomorrow, it probably won’t be as a result of his “terminal illness”.
The article mentioned above can be accessed here.
Herman is right. Virulent African nationalism is an inevitable (and psychologically inevitable), aftermath of colonialism and white racism, at least for the first 100 years or so. The “minorities” who so offend Mr Malema have at least the following (non exclusive) options:
(a) International emigration (Breytenbach)
(b) Internal emigration/withdrawal from public affair (too many to mention).
(c) Angry defiance (Max du Preez, in some moods.)
(d) Sycophancy (Steven Friedman).
(e) Denia/ denial-of-the-very- possibility-of black-racism (Pierre).
(f) Earnest appeals to reason (Pierre, again).
(g) Corruption/purchase of special treatment (Kebble.)
(h) Ad hoc alliances with selected majority factions (Kasrils).
(i) Apolitical professionalism (Marcus/Gordhan).
Peter // Aug 7, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Peter – it is probably the way in which Hlophe pronounced ‘robes’ during the interview (which was taped) that might have caused this ‘transcription error’?
My goodness, Prof – you really are obsessed with John Hlophe, arent you?…Anyway, doesnt the constitution of the country (which supercedes some judicial “guidelines” written by few white judges) give every S.A citizen a right to freedom of expression? Langa CJ and Moseneke DCJ had expressed themselves moes to the media at some stage, in fact, they literally forced other ConCourt judges to be part of their freedom to express that they will be lodging a complaint with the JSC (hence this mess by the way!). Moseneke DCJ got drunk and freely expressed himself at his liquor party and nobody cried “guidelines”. It is exactly this double-talk that pains me!
Spuy is quite right. Once again, the JP is the victim of outrageous double standards!.
After all, no one would complain if a white judge announced “I refuse to shake a black man’s hand.” He would just be exercising his right to free speech!
Oh, I almost forgot: the white judge would naturally also be entitled to a presumption of innocence.
Michael – Ooooh! … That SARCASM!! … I Like. … Remember, Spuy is part of an all (black, mind you!) MALE top structure of some union or the other. Don’t be too harsh on him – human rights is just something that falls nice on the tongue (borrowed from the Afrikaans paraphrase) when it suits you. But, when it doesn’t … “Human rights are BAD! … Real BAD!!”
Anonymouse, does your cyncism know no bounds?
I remain CONVINCED that NOT ONE of the JP’s defenders would object if a white judge said he would not shake a black man’s hand!
Michael:
I tend to agree with your list. The kind of Virulent African Nationalism (Malema, Hlophe, etc.) can’t be seen as unexpected, given the past. Not that it is right, or best, etc. In order to understand, we need to distinguish between “is” and “ought”. And this is to be expected, because it is what has happened in many other places before.
South Africa will be somewhat different, because it’s history is somewhat different–but to expect that there would be NO expressions of this African Nationalism and racially centered thinking would be silly.
The question is not if this is happening, or if it is good, but rather the extent that it will become official policy. How much of what we are seeing is simply opportunistic posturing by people who want to use this to enrich themselves, and how much is a sincere political ideology/conviction?
The white racist “Hlophephobes” were really put in their place by Dr Paul Ngobeni on SABC Interface last night!
First, I am sure many of these Hlophephobes were taken by surprise to hear that Ngobeni has a doctorate. Their racist arrogance was rudely deflated when it was revealed on SABC that he has, indeed, ascended to the very pinnacle of academia!
Second, Dr Ngobeni, deploying the kind of logic that I am sure assisted his graduate studies, cited as one reason the JP is qualified to be CJ the fact that he had endured the excruciating pain of serving as JP of the most untransformed province – which had failed even to vote for Mandela! Bravo!
Mzo, seventy two hours and no statement from Hlophe yet that the article was falsified. So, will you agree I had a point?
@ Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
“First, I am sure many of these Hlophephobes were taken by surprise to hear that Ngobeni has a doctorate.”
My understanding is that Paul Ngobeni has a JD degree, which is equivalent to the South African LLB. Not sure that this is the same as a PhD in South Africa, which requires independent primary research and a written thesis, examined by three examiners, one of which must be international.
Perhaps Prof de Vos can verify that for us, and tell us whether a US JD can be called a doctorate in South Africa?
Wikipedia says:
“Juris Doctor
The Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence (see etymology and abbreviations below) is a graduate academic degree (“post-graduate” in most Commonwealth countries) – specifically, a professional doctorate and first professional degree in law.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
The degree originated in the United States at Harvard University in the 19th century, which pioneered the so-called “scientific” study of law. It gradually displaced the LL.B. degree, becoming the only first professional degree offered by accredited American law schools in the United States by the end of the 20th century.
Like other American professional doctorates (e.g., MD, EdD, DDS, etc.), the J.D. or D.Jur. degree curriculum does not normally require any preliminary or terminal qualifying examinations, nor does it require a written dissertation or thesis, and oral defense thereof; and there is almost never a foreign language requirement – an almost invariable component of the Philosphiae Doctor curriculum. However, some law schools offer certificate programs within degree curriculum that may add some of these requirements, such as the Public Interest Law certificate at Golden Gate University, which requires submission of a qualifying paper on a public interest law topic.[12][13]“
@ Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder
And the followng quote…
“UCT’s Dineo Noganta added: “The reference to Mr Ngobeni as Dr appeared in the university’s internal newsletter in error. His qualification, Doctor of Jurisprudence, was incorrectly interpreted as being a doctorate; hence the reference.””
Prof, please clarify whether Paul Ngobeni has the right to call himself Dr in South Africa?
A JD does not entitle you to call your self Dr.However the American legal PhD is referred to as a Doctor of Juridical Science(S.J.D) or (J.S.D) depending on the law school.So someone with an S.J.D is entitled to be called Dr.You are indeed correct that the JD is the equivalent of a post-graduate LLB which takes three years to complete.The mistake over Mr Ngobeni’s title is probably due the fact that JD means Juris Doctor without it necessarily being a doctorate.
Thank you, Ronnie.
I also noted from Wiki that the JD is a pre-requisite for a Masters in Law, so is certainly NOT “the very pinnacle of academia”.
John Hlophe , however, does indeed have a Doctorate of Law from Cambridge.
Pierre De Vos // Aug 9, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Prof, if by having a point you mean the guidelines appear to have been breached, I’ve already said that I agree with you that IF THE REPORT IS ACCURATE there is definitely a breach of the guidelines, at least on the face of it.
However, I am not comfortable with your self-imposed time frames, especially when other judges have weeks / months to correct incorrec reports. Why should he have to correct the report within hours? ….in any event, the report will not become accurate simply because he has not disputed it even though it is currently all we have for the purposes of our discussion.
My understanding is that his right to dispute its accuracy will remain reserved until such time that the JSC calls him to answer to charges of breach of the Guidelines (assuming that will ever happen).
Come to think of it, how about you facilitate the process Prof and lay a complaint with the JSC. My fear is that if someone like you does not do it, we’ll forever debate the issue with a proviso, “assuming the report is accurate”. In view of your strong feelings on this issue and your standing in public, I think you laying a complaint will ensure that the matter gets the attention it deserves. Good luck to you!!
Mzo, it wasn’t a personal attack on you, take it easy brother. Your statement indicated that you had taken a stance against PdV’s post purely on the basis of an ommission which in your mind should have been there. I felt that this was shortsighted – a way to divert attention from the issues, if you will.
Irrespective of whether or not the report is accurate, if I was a man in Hlophe’s position I would be moving very quickly to put out fires – I would imagine it to be slightly unreasonable to expect to be elevated to CJ with accusations like these floating around the media. If the report is inaccurate, then one would imagine a lawsuit announcement almost immediately after publication – those are fairly libellous allegations if they are fabricated. Hlophe hasn’t uttered a word – and to my little mind it would appear that the only reason a man wouldn’t want to defend himself against such scandalous reports in a court of law is if, in fact, that man’s position is indefensible (an extension of PdV’s argument above).
Given Hlophe’s history, the man is a basket case when it comes to figuring out right from wrong. Unless I am mistaken, in which case Mzo, I’d like you to refute my facts – I can take correction where correction is warranted.
Pierre – you can stop holding your breath now – see
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/011874f3d1a54c7e9929439297832a2f/10-08-2009%2005-08/Shaik_spotted_driving_in_Durban
Peter you beat me to it hahahahaha
I love the “the Shaik family were not available for comment” part. Of course they werent! They were out buying balloons!
Why is Michael Osborne only Michael these days? New laptop? Flying under the radar? What is it?
Laptop hacked by JFHA impersonator. But thanks for your concern, Mpho.
As for “Dr” Ngobeni… LOL.
Mzo, Can one allege a fact?
I think Mr Malunga, of WITS, agrees with the more progressive form of transformation and I’m happy to note that.
If Hlophe has said anything even similar to what he’s reported to have said then he really should consider a job lsewhere. he could join the ranks of academia (more exteemed than Ngobeni) and write his thesis on The Africanisation of Law”. Prof’s link showed interesting comments at the end of the article, such as:
“The term that was regarded to be associated to apertheid which were practiced by white racists.This shows that though you are quick to respond in trying to justify what Africans has gone through ofwhich you all know nothing about, you are still in denial that you are also not transformed. The fact that you didnt have an idea that the word Black is no longer regarded as a description for African shows that you are far from understanding what Africans went through duing apertheid. The so-called white system have put in place psychiastrists, psychologies, social workers, etc to deal with emotional issues with reasons knowed to yourselves. But then why do you expect African to forget their pain and suffering which existed for decades and which still exists to just let bygones be bygones and forget about what they went through?” Rosinah Senona on August 8, 2009, 5:16 pm
The govt also used the words “bantu” and “native”. I still say abantu so I don’t see what the fuss is about. African is not a very wise wrod to use. People born in Africa are Africans regardless of race. Some people make too great an attempt to be PC that it baffles me.
Is the guy qualified to be on the bench on merit or because he shook the white man’s hand. There are a whole number of racist who are judges. Hlophe taught law at the University of Transkei. Normally those who wish to enter private practice as advocates are required to become members of a Bar Association by undergoing a period of training in pupilage with a practicing member of the Bar and by sitting an admission examination. Hlophe knows how whites work, he was born in 1959, so he is not fooled by the facades unlike people like Michelle Lame,mj sun and Faith Botha [commentors on m&g]. Show me one white person who is clean, its either they benefitted from oppression or inherited from aparthied. Hlophe is saying lets not just shake hands with people whose hands are not clean when it comes to justice or democracy.
Satchwell, an open lesbian, who spoke about the legal system in contributing to the violations of human rights in South Africa under apartheid, is more honest than all the other whites who seat on the bench who are known for racism and corruption, but can’t be removed because it will be called reverse racism.
Themba Ndou on August 8, 2009, 2:53 pm
I’ll simply say the word “reverse” racism is misleading. Racism, by its nature is not simply from white [or is it European] people towards other races (eg black people). Most white people would have had no choice but to benefit under Apartheid and that doesn’t make anyone more or less evil. Also, the guy evades Hlophe’s racist comment entirely and talks about others.
You are indeed correct Nkululeko.I do not support a heavy-handed ZANU-PF style of doing things.That would be a disaster.That however does not mean transformation must not take place.It needs all parties to be willing and co-operative and this does not seem to happen in legal practice.
Assuming he has been correctly quoted, he seems to have ruled himself out of contention for the Constitutional Court.
Among our founding costitutional values are non-racialism and equality. Hlophe’s comments show that he does not subscribe to either. And refusing to shake someone’s hand on the basis of their skin colour probably shows that one does not respect their dignity either.
This man is not fit and proper to serve as a magistrate, let alone on the highest court in our country.
Duke, I very much agree with your view to the effect that if the relevant press publication is accurate, then Hlophe has quite clearly shown himself to be unfit for appointment to the Constitutional Court bench. That is, we simply cannot be expected to countenance a Constitutional Court judge who cannot uphold founding constitutional values.
pierre, i think someone ought to write hlophe a public letter, perhaps via the mail and guardian, and find a gentle way of suggesting to him that the personal struggle he has undertaken with the constitutional court, aside from the public campaign for chief justice that he has now launched (alongside all the other irregularities in his conduct as a judge) are damaging to the credibility not only of himself but of the entire judiciary and justice system and suggest to him that his desires for public recognition, power and wealth might be better served if he were to remove himself as a judge and, as you suggested, pursue a career in politics. i think we need to ask him very nicely to step down. ‘please mr hlophe, you are welcome to pursue your personal gain by your own means, but please stop trying to use the institutions that uphold our democracy and guarantee each of millions of south africa a life of dignity, equality and freedom to advance your own ends’. obviously it shouldn’t be a white academic who writes the letter. perhaps black law students’ societies around the country could unite to write a joint letter. or something. but someone needs to remind this man who obviously once knew what it meant to hold the office of a judge what he has forgotten about the responsibility of sitting on the bench. he must once have held that responsibility and that office and those ethical guidelines dear. he must remember them?
on a side not Pikoli won his application to postpone NPA appointment
Chris, thanks for the good news.
Because of the bias that certain media houses have tended to report on issues, we have had to take whatever is reported by them at least with a pinch of salt. It is therefore not surprising there are those who feel whatever has been reported should be accepted with scrutiny because many a times newspapers have lied (perhaps to increase sales and financial margins at he expense of the individual who is the subject of the article). The article that is the subject of debate herein is no exception, i have had to take it with a bucket of salt.
However, having done so, if the article is correct (which i have no reason not to believe save for understanding that sometimes these newspapers feed us untruths) then really Hlophe JP has gotten it all wrong, AGAIN.
Whilst I respect Hlophe JP’s rights and freedoms of speech and belief, such rights are not unencumbered. He being a judge should know better. When interpreting the applicability of such rights to him, we cannot leave out the considerations relating to his office and its ethical edifices.
It is in that light that some people take issue with the JP’s utterances. Well having said that, none of us have heard evidence in the matters involving the President JZ. The question that comes to mind is whether Hlophe JP has heard something that the rest of the populace has not heard and therefore he bases his belief of innocence on such material. Otherwise I would be very worried if a judge can just willy-nilly arrive at such conclusions of innocence without having heard a thing. It does not matter to me that he shall not be hearing the case in the future when it sees (if it will ever) the doors of the courts. Its one thing to believe in one’s innocence and another to presume one innocent.
Pierre,
What’s your take on this?
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=vn20090811033259602C952092&newslett=1&em=21138a1a20090811ah
Leigh // Aug 11, 2009 at 10:52 am
now all we need to do is wait for end of November
Pikoli gets back in the saddle and gets his job back ( which he will)….ouch watch the deck of cards come falling down. That to me is gonna be a hell of show.
Why do people keep on arguing that Hlophe is not fit for appointment to the ConCourt? I thought this was obvious ever since the charges against him!
Unlike a political office, being a judge requires not only good qualifications but also good reputation and the ability to not only dispense justice but also make sure that justice is manifestly seen to be done. Currently, Hlophe is not fit to even be a Clerk in the Magistrate’s Court!
Hey Pierre youll love this one, Honestly keep up the good work it appears the JSC listens to you
http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/4b16b6fef5a14197ad026b5fc8a824d6/12-08-2009%2008-08/JSC_probing_Hlophe_outburst
Pierre much respect it seem slike the JSC wants to do a probe into hlophe for his comment to langa ” i dont want to shake a white mans hand”
Sne – you are of course correct in every respect – but the politicians, would they agree?
Chris – yes, since Hlophe has now had ample time to detract or recant what he had told the press, but didn’t, the JSC has to investigate the matter (and add all the charges together) in the public good. And, if there are grounds to do so, its should recommend impeachment.
Prof et al
Just like I expected, Hlophe is reported (assuming this is correct) to be preparing or laying a complaint with the Press Ombudsman for what he is reported to call a “blatant lie” by Sello.
Didn’t quite meet your 72 hour deadline but came close and still much better than Squires J….I still maintain though that if the report is true (for Sello’s and all our sake, I hope Prof was right about the tape recorder), the JSC would be failing in its duty if it does not take this matter up seriously.
Mzo – where has this been this reported?
And, was the complaint only filed after the JSC indicated that it would be probing the issue?
Anonymouse
It’s on today’s Legalbrief website. I don’t know when teh complaint was filed or if it has been filed at all. However, why does it matter? The fact of the matter is that it would appear that he is disputing the correctness of the report (partially or in full), in which case we are all required to be wary of the manner in which we comment on the allegations. It would be wrongn for any of us to comment as if we know for a fact that either of them is telling “blatant lies”.
Mzo, OK, you are vindicated. Now that the JP has denied all or parts of the conversation, we do indeed to be cautious about accepting what Sello said he said..
I recall that many of those at whom the JP pointed his finger in his “Racism” report also denied his charges. I am curious: How did you feel about the veracity of those accusations?
As far as I could ascertain, the JP is merely denying that he referred to Buthelezi or the Zulu king in the M&G interview. However, the M&G editor (Dawes) noted that “the JSC had approached Alcock to ask him to confirm, in writing, that Hlophe had made the comments. This had been done.” (from Legalbrief)
Eish, even myself I am confused… either there’s a huge, major, intergalactic conspiracy against the JP, or he’s trying his utmost to bury himself in flames!?!? Whichever it is, the JP is certainly extremely skilled at creating controversy!!
If Sello has the interview recorded, then Hlophe’s integrity is on the line (again). I hope, for his sake, and that of our President, Sello did not record the interview.
In any case, Hlophe denies only the part that makes reference to Chief Buthelezi and King Zwelithini.
I suppose (if the other part of the interview is correct) he is still in contravention of some judicial ethics.
Mikhail // Aug 12, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I have never had any reasons not to believe their denials, nor did I have any reason to believe that the JP was making everything up. I think it was wrong for those people who simply took what the JP said as the gospel truth or conclusive proof of what was happening in that Division.
In my view, the JP expressed the way he saw things in the Western Cape and what was really needed was not to accept or reject the report outright, but rather to engage with it so that we could all establish whether the JP’s perceptions of the situation were indeed correct. If so, devise means to deal with the situation and if not, make him (and those that agreed with him) understand why his perceptions may have been wrong.
It was totally unhelpful, in my view, to simply have people (predominantly black – in my experience) accepting the report as the truth and others (predominantly white – again, in my experience) rubbishing the report. What was needed was an honest engagement with the report.
But like I have opined elsewhere, so long as we have black people believing that everything happening against them is necessarily because of racism and some white people wanting us to believe that racism is nothing but a myth, we are not likely to get our society where we all want it to be.
Interesting tidbits from the Mail & Guardian:
“In the M&G interview — at a popular African restaurant in Cape Town on August 5 — Hlophe said that although it was Zuma’s prerogative to appoint the next chief justice, he believed that the appointment of Constitutional Court Judge Sandile Ngcobo as a “stop-gap” chief justice would give “his [Zuma's] enemies a chance to regroup”.”
M&G editor Nic Dawes said on Wednesday: “It is not unusual for people to say things at a gathering of friends that they regret when it appears in the cold light of print. Sello and I have discussed the story at length, and the Mail & Guardian stands by it. We have offered Judge Hlophe right of reply, and sincerely hope that he avails himself of it.”
What struck me was the (naughty) implication in the story that Hlophe said these things in a Restaurant where he thought he was among friends (and may have been doing what one does in Restaurants – drink and eat).
Prof,
I thought Sello was reporting on the INTERVIEW he had with Hlophe JP…..now there was also a restaurant conversation?…it ol gets more and more stinky…
Pity it would appear that Sello did not keep those tapes Prof, certainly nor for the restaurant conversation – yet another exit way out for the JP and I will bet you my last Rand, he will use it!!
Mzo, I recall that you had a fairly heated exchange with the Professor quite recently. If memory serves, you took issue with him for failing to draw the attention of unsuspecting readers to the fact that the factual content of the piece upon which the Professor relied was untested.
If the views which you expressed at that time can be taken as a statement of a properly circumspect, general approach to press publications, then as far as I am concerned: fair play indeed. That is, one should not casually accept as truth everything which one reads or hears.
I also recall that you raised the matter of the protracted Squires J misquote. And insofar as you relied thereon to support your apparent general approach to media reports, I think you were justified in doing so.
So the core question here becomes: what do I find problematic about your treatment of the freshest allegations against Hlophe?
While I think your general approach is very sensible, I think that you do not direct enough attention to the particular facts that obtain here.
As regards the interview between Hlophe and Sello, I would have thought a misquote more probable had Sello reported only one or two repugnant utterances. But that is not the case. Rather, Sello has reported a number of utterances which could well prove to be damning if established to the satisfaction of a future tribunal.
It also seems to me quite unlikely that a professional with Sello’s experience would make several misquotes of damning statements.
So while I will agree with you on what I read as your general approach, I tend to think that the probablities, given the circumstances which presently obtain, militate against Hlophe.
And as regards Hlophe’s election to contest the allegations, I would say two things. First – and most importantly – Hlophe should be given a fair chance to challenge the veracity of the publication.
Secondly, I think it is premature to discount the potential relevance of whether Hlophe decided to contest the allegations after the JSC decided to investigate (we hope earnestly). That is, I do not think that the following constitutes a far fetched theory: Hlophe just screwed the pooch this time. He later realised that (a) he did (b), that Nic Dawes is a brave democrat and (c) he had to tender some sort of defense to avoid his silence being construed as a tacit admission.
Leigh
My take on it is that if Sello is really the experienced professional we are led to believe he is, then I would expect that he has a recording of the INTERVIEW.
All that will happen then is that the JSC will lay charges against the JP; he will (most probably) deny; they produce the recording…bang, GUILTY AS CHARGED….but there will still be a small matter of appropriate sanction, but that’s an issue for another day.
However, if Sello dropped his standards and failed to keep a recording, I’m afraid we are heading for the same scenario of “I gave the case to him because I knew he will f**k it up” and “it’s a lie, I never said that”.
Mzo, what of the view that it is unlikely that Sello would have made so many misquotes?
“I was lynched”–is this John Hlophe or Clarence Thomas? If he starts on about finding pubic hairs on his can of Coke, I’m going to get very worried….
I agree, it is unlikely, but not impossible. Did you see the Press Ombudsman’s report that came out about a week ago against the very same Mail & Guardian? If not, have a look at it – it might just show you what is possible, even if you would have thought unlikely!!
I just don’t trust these newspapers anymore. Period. It can be Hlophe, Prof, Zuma, Zille or whoever they are reporting about.
Slippery’s letter to the CJ is at http://www.theweekender.co.za/hlophe.pdf. The second sentence of paragraph 4 has had me in stitches all morning – “Despite the unpleasant issues pending before the JSC and THE MANY ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT YOU, I continue to hold you in high regard…” (my caps). Parallel universe?
Humourist, Chris Roper’s take on the latest uproad: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-08-13-take2-the-dear-john-letters#comments
“Mzo // Aug 7, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I do not understand what you are on about, about me “continuosly jumping to protect the JP”.”
Mzo, please accept my appology for this remark – I confused you with another blogger – your name that is, not your ability!! So sorry, my bad!
Back to this issue – I see Sello did not record his interview with the JP. See his reply to JP Hlope’s denials at -
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-08-14-judge-for-yourself