Perhaps they should be careful in what they wish for…
(er, if is truly “justice” that they seek for the (?)honourable judge).

Leigh, I have difficulty in answering this question because, firstly, I have great difficulty in believing the statement alleging that Hlophe refused to shake Langa’s hand for the stated reasons because I know Hlophe has recently been represented by white Counsel. It is unlikely that he would not shake hands with his legal representatives. It is also unlikely that he would tell Langa that they shook hands twice if that was not true.

Secondly, recent history tells me that things people say in Court papers do not necessarily tie up with things they say and do out of Court. A recent example being that of President Zuma and former President Mbeki. Pres Zuma said some harsh things about TM or his Cabinet but they always maintained that they were friends and there was no bad blood between them.

I think my answer will cover both questions, my view is that he is partly responsible for the suspicion. My view on this is based solely on 2 previous issues:

(1) I bellieve that, whilst I have no issues with the (in)famous Racism Report, I think the manner in which he handled it was not the best and necessarily created a platform for those accused to “fight fire with fire”, as it were. More like Adv Malunga & the Wits Dean scenario. I think he probably should have taken a view from those he accused in his report before the report became public. As you know, most of what is or is not racism is a matter of perception, so he may have received perfectly innocent explanations from those he accused for their actions, which would not necessarily be racist.

(2) His fiasco with Oasis was really unfortunate. He should have recused himself, period. However, on the Oasis matter I depart with many bloggers when it comes to how much of that should be held against him. The way I see it, he failed to recuse himself when, in my view, he should have and he was correctly lambasted for that. The rest of the ancillary issues on permission and all were dealt with by the JSC and they made a finding, whether you like it or not. End of story.

However, I fail to see how the other allegations (like calling a white person a piece of white s**t – which was WITHDRAWN) can be held against him or how he can be blamed for this “controversy”.

I have no control over how many people will accuse me of this or that and it would be really sad if I would be judged on the basis of how many of those allegations were levelled against me.

Hlophe had some mightily provocative things to say about Moseneke DCJ and Langa CJ at the recent JSC preliminary investigation. And as far as I know, he has yet to tender the proof which Moseneke DCJ dared him to produce.

My question is: can we say that Hlophe’s utterances about Moseneke and Langa at the investigation are consistent with his alleged refusal to shake Langa’s hand for his alleged reason?

The first concerns the following: I have for some while understood your basic grievance to be that you are erroneously taken for a Hlophe supporter. You regard this as being unfortunate because what you truly support is not Hlophe but rather the notion of fair treatment of even unpopular figures. Your grievance is, in some respects, justifiable.

Now some of our fellow bloggers seem to have formed the view that you are, for one with such a keen capacity for critical analysis, unduly sympathetic towards Hlophe. But that contention finds its basis in the assumption that clever people would necessarily want Hlophe condemned forthwith on whatever mere allegations there are that happen to reflect badly on him. So you are I think justified in dismissing that view.

But I would like to give you the chance to clarify a few things by responding – as I hope you will – to two questions.

First, do you think that Hlophe is at all responsible for the suspicion with which he is regarded?

And secondly, if so, do you think that while he is as entitled as anyone else to procedural fairness and the enjoyment of his substantive rights, that he will have to concede that he can blame only himself for the suspicion which he bears?

I guess it’s always a difficult thing to do, trying to show the prejudices from the other side without necessarily creating an impression that you are betting for the other side.

For the record

1. I remain of the view that if the reports are true, the JSC should do all of us a favour and deal with the matter appropriately.

2. I hope Hlophe JP is serious enough about taking the matter to the relevant authorities, like the Press Ombudsman. I do not subscribe to notion that he HAS to sue for defamation otherwise his denial cannot be believed. I think he should, like everyone else, be allowed to take whatever step he deems necessary to protect his rights, not the one preferred by the likes of Prof Gutto et al.

3. I do not believe Sello is necessarily being the honest, professional and diligent journalist as some of the bloggers here would like us to believe he is. His failure to dispute Hlophe’s EXPRESS denial of an exclusive interview with his is telling.

4. Reading Hlophe’s letter to Langa, it makes a lot of sense to me and my suspicion is that it would to a lot of other people – problem is simply that it is from Hlophe JP.

5. I do not believe that a person’s “guilt” should be determined by how many allegations have been levelled against him in the past, especially when those have been dealt with by a constitutional body like the JSC – regardless of how we may all feel about the “verdict” they gave.

6. The one trend I note from most bloggers is that it is not so much about the credibility of the allegations or the explanations given than it is about WHO is involved. I think that is unfortunate, especially for people who purport to value the principle of the Rule of Law as well as the Bill of Rights enshrined in our Constitution. Judging a book by its cover is never a wise thing in my respectful view.

The double standards we see everyday in our public discourse is a big concern for me. On the one hand you have Adv Pikoli being offered some millions to basically “shut up and leave us in peace” – he rejects that and we all praise him as a principled man, correctly so I might add.

On the other hand, you have the very same people who objected to Adv Pikoli accepting the pay out supporting / considering or at least not being opposed to the possibility of Hlophe JP being offered the money to “shut up and leave us in peace”.

Seems to me that our moral standards depend on who is involved!!

However, as good (and I’m not saying that it is) as your arguments may be for not believing Sello’s report, I think you should likewise guard against leaning too much towards the other end, i.e. playing Devil’s Advocate just for the sake of it. Yes, Sello might have been “creative” with certain comments, who knows, but (my) logic dictates that it’s highly unlikely that the entire report is a figment of his imagination…

To consider your first question and certain investigations which seem to be ancilliary thereto: for a start, I would understand exclusivity to mean that there was a fairly clear understanding between Hlophe and Sello that the latter would be the only person to whom the former would talk about certain topics.

I am certainly not confident that such an understanding was reached. But I would also not rule out the following interpretation: Sello was the only journalist present who asked questions of Hlophe which, on a fairly reasonable construction, can be taken as being an exclusive interview.

But to answer the question, I simply do not have enough to go on so I would prefer to reserve judgment on whether the interaction can properly be called an exclusive interview.

With respect, I would also prefer not to comment on your second, third and fourth questions as (a), I do not have enough facts at my disposal for two and (b), questions three and four call for much in the way of conjecture.

I enjoyed looking at questions five and six and I tender my answers below.

As regards questions five, I do think it is possible that Hlophe would have said what he is alleged to have communicated despite the fact that he has shaken Langa CJ’s hand in the fairly recent past. And I would offer three reasons in support of my opinion.

The first reason is that it seems to me that Hlophe has recently begun adopting a fairly political approach to fast-tracking his judicial career. That is, his conduct to me seems to denote something of the following: he aims at procuring the support of enough of the citizenry to inspire Zuma to appoint him on the basis of popularity. And refusing to shake the hand of someone who was party to a conspiracy against him might go down very well with various factions in our society who curiously seem to back the ANC as a matter of course but not logic.

The second reason is that the recent preliminary hearing was Hlophe’s first appearance at a proceeding in respect of the present spat. I think that would have chafed a bit. It certainly appears that Hlophe was upset during the course of the investigation given the mightily abrasive things that he had to say while there. Thus I think that experience could reasonably account for Hlophe’s diminished courtesy.

And the third reason is that sometimes people just change their minds and behaviour – sometimes drastically.

With respcet, I am going to break your sixth question down into two separate ones. The first concerns whether I think Hlophe’s explanation is believable. The second goes to whether I would believe the explanation if it came from Langa CJ.

My answer is this: it could possibly be true coming from Hlophe but I am disinclined from believing it from him.

As mentioned earlier, Hlophe had some pretty strong things to say at the preliminary investigation. To say you were lynched is a very daring accusation indeed. So if Hlophe would say something so asinine, cack-handed and provocative at a JSC preliminary hearing, I think it is likely that he would say equally stupid things at a dinner table.

Langa CJ on the other hand has not lost his composure or, with respect, his dignified carriage once during the course of this very messy business. Thus I think it would be reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt if he had offered such an explanation.

My own view is that I would not trust Hlope in this he said she said, based on his past dishonesties, and because Sello has been vetted by quite a few on this bored.