Comments on: Hlophe a free man?

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:00:39 +0000

Ok – Jafta’s second round of testimony definitely softened his initial testimony.

However, this part of the judgement is inexpliciable and could almost have been written by Hlope himself –

“The ONLY reason why he (Jafta), a month later, thought that Hlophe JP had been trying to influence him improperly was because of what Nkabinde J had said in her report to him concerning Hlophe JP’s visit to her.”

The reason is that what Nkabinda said reinforced his feelings about his own visitation by Hlope.

I must say that I am happy with the transparency of the whole process, even though I disagree with the outcome. I think the various testimonies refelect upon Hlope very badly and hopefully his CC ambitions are now dead in the water. Unfortunately he continues as CJ….?

Also interesting to hear Hlope dissing “whites” once again – something about how his white colleagues don’t see things the same way. Those pesky white pieces of shit….

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:32:20 +0000

I must say that the account of Judge Jafta’s testimony doesn’t leave me with the feeling that he now thinks that Hlope was not trying to influence him. He makes it very clear that Hlope was trying to influence him – albeit that it took the visit by Hlope to Nkambinde to confirm this in his mind. I think that many of us have been unduly harsh on J Jafta in this regard. In particular, the impression I got from the media was that he had completely flip flopped.

By: Jabu Khuluse

Jabu Khuluse — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:52:33 +0000

It is a great day for Justice for Hlophe Alliance, the outcome vindicate us and we are also looking for to Judge Hlophe’s leadership. Now we have to make sure that judiciary is transformed, judiciary is independent and free South Africa from racists.

By: Skhokho Radebe

Skhokho Radebe — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:49:00 +0000

@Michael Osborne and Kevin Malunga. I have found some cases that may answer your questions. First is a case from the Labour Court of RSA, the citation is : Avril Elizabeth Home For the Mentally Handicapped v CCMA and Others [2006] 9 BLLR 833 (LC) ; [2006] JOL 17623 (LC) in which the court held amongst other things that the standard of proof in discplinary proceedings is on a balance of probabilities, and a fair procedure must be followed in the stages leading to the hearing itself.

The other cases, are from the US. They are: to be found in the Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol 2 No 3, 1989. The cases are Cleveland Board of Educators v James Loudermill, 1985. the last one is Parma Board of Education v Richard Donnelly). i have personally googled them and found them. I hope they will help in answering your many questions.

By: Michael Osborne

Michael Osborne — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:42:25 +0000

Harold, perhaps you are not aware that the presumption of innocence has a very specific technical meaning. It has implications regarding discovery, evidence, standard of proof, etc. (I can offer citations if you like.)

If one is merely asserting that, as in all litigation, civil, criminal or administrative, he who asserts must prove – which of course is normally true, outside of the reverse onus setting — one would not normally use the technical term “presumption of innocence.”

By: sirjay jonson

sirjay jonson — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:38:53 +0000

By the way, I also think your new site is fabulous and enjoyed re-reading the Constitution.

By: Leigh

Leigh — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:35:26 +0000

Sirjay, you may be more correct than you know. Hlophe presently faces a defamation suit which was pressed by Professor Nagan. And the basis of that claim seems convincing enough for Hlophe to give earnest thought to a settlement. But I would love to see the case run. And incidentally, could it be that in a several months we will be asking the following question: is there a basis for a allegation of gross judicial misconduct where a judge is found liable of making defamatory remarks of another judge? Quite possibly I think.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:28:19 +0000

The learned JSC members doesn’t seem to even understand the meaning of “improper conduct”. Seemingly Hlope’s DISCUSSION of the case, with more than one Judge (which they found strange in their professional capacities), is all above board.

Just because the JSC claim “inferences” doesn’t mean that there are NO FACTS. Frankly they are crystal clear, shouting out to be seen, yet blatantly being ignored.

The SUBSTANCE of the original JSC complaint has very conveniently gone missing. Houdini would have been proud!

Similarly, the JSC is now basically saying that the Constitutional Court Judges are INCOMPETENT: they lodged a HIGH PROFILE complaint against a Judge President without the complaint having ANY substance ─ if it had substance we wouldn’t be now having this discussion.

Let me guess: we should also CONTINUE to TRUST our legal fraternity, while of course accepting their high fees, as THEY KNOW THE LAW?

The JSC Ruling makes a mockery of Justice.
So much for Justice.

By: sirjay jonson

sirjay jonson — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:16:22 +0000

Seeing alll these erudite postings, consider this a comment from the peanut gallery. In our hearts I expect that most of us felt, juggling hindsight from these past years, that our questionably honorable Judge President was indeed going to escape censor? Just a thought along the line of leopards not changing their spots, how likely is it that Hllope will not entangle himself in further questionable activities and eventually drown himself.

Old wisdom says: be careful what you want, you might just get it.

The JSC is simply a reflection of where we find ourselves, not so much Animal farm, more to my thought, Lord of the Flies.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:16:02 +0000

the whole bangshoot available here – http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=iol1251463687809H412