Quote of the week

The judgments are replete with the findings of dishonesty and mala fides against Major General Ntlemeza. These were judicial pronouncements. They therefore constitute direct evidence that Major General Ntlemeza lacks the requisite honesty, integrity and conscientiousness to occupy the position of any public office, not to mention an office as more important as that of the National Head of the DPCI, where independence, honesty and integrity are paramount to qualities. Currently no appeal lies against the findings of dishonesty and impropriety made by the Court in the judgments. Accordingly, such serious findings of fact in relation to Major General Ntlemeza, which go directly to Major General Ntlemeza’s trustworthiness, his honesty and integrity, are definitive. Until such findings are appealed against successfully they shall remain as a lapidary against Lieutenant General Ntlemeza.

Mabuse J
Helen Suzman Foundation and Another v Minister of Police and Others
16 October 2009

Its all a matter of credibility

Members of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) who read the founding affidavit of Freedom Under Law (FUL) in their application to set aside the decision of the JSC not to properly investigate the complaint of gross misconduct against Judge President John Hlophe, would be hard pressed not to feel ashamed.

Whatever the legal merits of the case presented by FUL, the affidavit builds a strong case that the JSC’s decision was so absurd, irrational and  arbitrary that no reasonable person would have been able to make it. FUL contends that in an effort to avoid a situation where Judge President Hlophe (who has been caught out lying in the past) would have to face cross-examination, it decided – without affording the parties any of the procedural protections prescribed in the JSC’s own rules – that even though a prima facie case existed against Hlophe, the CC judges had not been able to prove during the “preliminary hearing” that Hlophe had unduly tried to influence them.

FUL’s affidavit – although it challenges the unlawfulness of the decision on relatively technical grounds – contains powerful pointers that goes to the substance of the complaint and when one reads it one gets the impression that FUL’s lawyers believe that the JSC should have made a credibility finding against Hlophe. FUL argues as follows in this regard;

In exercising [their] constitutional duty, [the JSC] must apply the law of evidence  regarding the resolution of conflicting factual versions. It is well-established that this requires a determination of the witnesses’ credibility, their reliability and probabilities. The JSC cannot abdicate this responisbility because the complianants and those against whom complaints are made are judges. If it were so, the power given to the JSC under section 177 and its rules would become meaningless whenever a judge denies a charge.

FUL points out that the JSC decision failed to consider crucial evidence which shows not only premeditation on the part of Hlophe, but supports a credibility finding in favour of Justice Nkabinde. It lists the following issues as pertinent:

  • There was a prior warning by Jaftha to Nkabinde that Hlophe was coming to talk to her;
  • There was supporting evidence of Justice Mokgoro and O’Regan (neither of whom testified at the second “preliminary hearing”) about what was said and what happened;
  • The fatal effect (both on credibility and the issue of pre-meditation) of the evidence that Justice Nkabinde had finished and circulated the note on priviledge before her conversation with Hlophe while Hlophe had claimed Nkabinde had said to him she was still busy working on that note;
  • The inconsistent media statements by Hlophe who had at first dismissed the complaint against him as “rubbish” and asked, rhetorically, how he in Cape Town could influence eleven judges sitting in Johannesburg. Hlophe at first did not admit that he had spoken to two judges of the CC about the Zuma matter, something that he later had to concede he did do by approaching each and talking to them in private in their chambers;
  • Hlophe had not provided a possible explanation why Justice Jaftha – a friend of many years – and Justice Nkabinde would manufacture the evidence which Hlophe disputes;

When Hlophe was challenged during his first interdict application to provide answers to the following questions he failed to do so:

  • does he allege that Nkabinde J is lying in her account of what happened;
  • does he allege that Jaftha AJ is also lying in his account of what happened;
  • does he allege that both Jaftha and Nkabinde allowed themselves to be coerced into making false statements against him;
  • does he allege that Jaftha and Nkabinde lied to their colleagues when, on various occasions, they conveyed what had happened between them and Hlophe to them;
  • does Hlophe allege that the other Judges of the CC have lied about what happened.

Instead Hlophe stated that these questions had to be determined at the JSC hearings. because there were no hearings, Hlophe never had to answer these pertinent questions that fatally undermines his credibility.

FUL seems to have a point. The fact that the JSC chose to believe some aspects of Hlophe’s version of events above that of Nkabinde looks in this context astounding and inexplicable. I think FUL has convinced me that no reasonable person with an open mind could possibly have come to such a decision.

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest