Could Judge President John Hlophe receive a “get out of jail free” card because of a bungling by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC)? The Weekender reported on Saturday that JSC commissioner Mvuseni Ngubane broke ranks with his colleagues in a “dissenting view” on the decision not to postpone the hearing of Judge President John Hlophe, saying one of the factors his colleagues considered was “the possibility that the current commissioners may be replaced” after the elections.
The majority viewpoint was that the hearing should not be postponed because it was “manifestly” in the interests of justice that it proceeded. Hlophe had tendered a sick note, claiming to have contracted a mysterious illness which was so severe that he could not attend the hearing – although the sick note lapsed on the Friday before the hearing started.
It is a sound tactical strategy for the Judge President to try and avoid a hearing, as even on his own version of events he acted in a manner so shockingly inappropriate that it would be difficult for the JSC not to recommend his impeachment because of gross misconduct on his part.
The “dissenting opinion” by Ngubane therefore seems to come as a early Christmas gift for Hlophe and his lawyers. It was of course wholly inappropriate for Ngubane to have publicised this opinion as the deliberations of the JSC are supposedly confidential. I am sure Hlophe, his lawyers and other fans will all issue a stern rebuke to Ngubane for breaching the confidentiality of the JSC which, after all, they have been arguing was sacrosanct.
But be that as it may, any evidence that anyone on the JSC had already made up his or her mind on the Hlophe matter before the evidence could be heard would place the JSC in a very awkward position and might strengthen the legal case for a recusal of the “biased” commissioners. According to The Weekender:
Hlophe’s attorney, Barnabas Xulu, told the Weekender yesterday that Hlophe was “shocked” by Ngubane’s statements and the fact that no one has denied them.“He couldn’t sleep last night,” Xulu says.
He said the “dissenting reasoning has shown an appearance of a strong element of bias, and we will be looking into the remedies available to our client in the circumstances”.
It is gratifying to note that Mr Xulu has such a strong sense of fairness and justice and that he could still be shocked – albeit not by the conduct of his client. But I am not sure these revelations – troubling as they might be – will ultimately assist Hlophe in avoiding responsibility for his shocking conduct (which admittedly has not kept me up at night, perhaps because I will never have to appear before the honorable Judge President).
One does not know exactly what was said behind closed doors, but if one of the members of the JSC said that the case had to proceed because the JSC might be reconstituted after the election (something I also raised in an earlier Blog) this might arguably show that the person who raised this point was biased against Hlophe. I would imagine it would be better for the JSC’s credibility if this individual immediately offered to recuse himself from the proceedings.
But the JSC did not rely on this reason to proceed with the hearing. Instead the JSC argued – correctly – that Hlophe’s sick note had expired the previous week and that he was abusing the process in an attempt to drag out the process and to avoid the hearing. While one member of the JSC might therefore well have to recuse himself from the proceedings, the rest of the members of the JSC would be competent to continue considering the complaint.
And the sooner they do so the better. This case has been dragging on for far too long and we now need the JSC to act firmly and decisively to prevent Hlophe and his lawyers from abusing the legal process.
It is interesting that Hlophe’s lawyers have stopped making arguments trying to defend their client’s actions and instead are now taking technical legal points to detract attention from the substance of the complaint against him. We will all draw our own conclusions from this turn of events. But I suspect this saga is going to drag on for quite a while because if there is one thing Hlophe cannot afford it is to have to testify in front of the JSC. How on earth will he explain away the fact that he approached two judges of the Constitutional Court to try and convince them to decide a particular case in a specific way?
Better to drag out the process and hope for a miracle down the line. After all, it worked for Jacob Zuma.
Couldn’t keep Zuma out of it? But anyway you attack the Cape Bar of racism, what did Hlophe expect, a fair teatment?It’s an open secret that members of the Cape bar and side bar wont rest until Hlophe gets impeached otherwise how do you explain the fact that “eminent lawyers”, as the media would have us believe, are against Hlophe and “ordinary lawyers”,like us, favour Hlophe.
There is a witchunt against Hlophe and like in Zuma will dissipate into nihility!
Ngubane’s “breaking ranks with his colleagues” due to his “dissenting opinion” is something unheard of, resulting in that he has actually now “‘recused” himself from the forther hearing, or, at least, has acted in such a way that he is disqualified to further proceed participating in the proceedings. We have not heard anything of his “resignation”, so we must take it that he still wants to be part of the JSC, at least until a new Adiminstration decides otherwise. (This makes one think that he is actually lobbying for re-appointment.)
I do not think that “recusal” is the proper remedy here – and I do not think that such an opinion by a member of the JSC (that he/she is afraid that the Zuma Administration will replace the political appointments – as opposed to ex officio appointments – on the JSC due to “shenanigans”) would necessarily indicate that the particular individual is biased against Hlophe. The Commisioner might be biased against the Zuma Administration trying to sabotage the hearing because Zuma is the one whose case was being heard when Hlophe JP allegedly (admittedly?) tried to influence two CC judges to decide the matter in Zuma’s favour. The test for the exceptio recusationis is whether a reasonable perception of bias could be drawn from that fact that the decision-maker (which is all the members of the JSC, and not only one or two dissenting ones). I do not think that such a perception can be regarded as “reasonable” in the circumstances. Moreover, the mere fact that there are political appointments to the JS, clearly indicates that even in matters before the JSC, there would often be political debate. Then there is the question why Ngubane, if he felt so strongly about the issue, did not there and then (when the decision not to postpone the matter further was made known) voice his “dissenting opinion” and the reasons therefor. Why did he wait until the matter moves to an end.
I think the proper thing now is for the JSC to finalize its proceedings and deliberations and, if (and only if) it decides to recommend Hlophe’s impeachment, to give reasons for its decision. If it is a majority decision, then of course the reasons for the minority’s feelings in the matter should also be disclosed. After all, the decision whether to impeach or not lies with Parliament since it is not compelled to recommend Hlophe’s dismissal to the President unless at least two thirds of Parliament supports such decision. And, when the recommendation of the JSC is deliberated in Parliament for that purpose, one can expect oposing political (as opposed to juridical) views to surface and influence the eventual decision. And, then, Parliament will have to know why the majority decided one thing and the minority another, so that the decision whether to impeach will be an informed and properly debated one.
These are all very important events as everybody awaits to see the road the RSA will travel under the Zuma gov { or the ANC Classic as Brian Pottinger calls them in his book }.
My gut tells me these Ngubane “revelations” are the first salvo of a backroom strategy by ANC Classic to discredit the [ current ] JSC and the process against Hlope. To eventually get him off the hook – and ready for elevation to the CC [ and then, a few years down the line to CJ'ship ].
The strategy of course entail the changing of the current ANC representatives {caucus} on the JSC, to enable ANC Classic to effortlessly “deploy” whichever cadres they want { all their Hlopes waiting in the wings } to the judiciary.
So all persons elevated to the Bench in the coming years should be regarded with high suspicion!!
Interesting times indeed………
The more interesting part is the relationship of the current CC { the CC as deployed by the Africanist former exiles, or ANC Lite } with the new Zuma administration – as he already indicated his disdain and mistrust in them.
Mdu – Step away from the process for a minute. I would be interested to hear your views on Hlope’s behaviour in the Oasis matter (permission from a dead minister, hearing a case involving his benefactors etc) and the self-admitted attempt to influence the 2 cc judges. Is this really someone you believe would be a good judge and role-model for transformation?
Pierre – what do you make of the NIA and Fraser’s complaint to the Ombudsman re the Mail and Guardian article fingering Fraser as the Zumatape leak?
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=127256&sn=Detail
Surely if they want to challenge the M&G article, they must be prepared to come clean themselves? Or not?
This was Nic Dawes’s reply when asked about the matter.
Dawes said Fraser had been offered the right of reply, to provide readers with the “fullest possible account”, but had not taken it up.
“We think they need to come clean,” said Dawes, because the subjects of “intelligence stories” hid behind “the mysteries of the trade, using a veil of confidentiality as an excuse to do whatever they like”.
Another question – today we hear secret investigations in the Selebi matter had also been declassified. I can’t offhand think of instances apart from the Zuma and now the Selebi matter, where material was declassified in recent history. What’s up with all that?
Prof,
On the assumption that we read the same Weekender report, I cannot help but be disgusted at how you misrepresent the report in this post. The report says: “one of the issues discussed by the COMMISSIONERS (plural) was “the possibility that the current commissioners may be replaced”. (my emphasis). However, Prof miraculously reduces this to “one member” of the JSC, a lie perpetuated (understandably, I suppose) by the likes of Mouse.
I can find nothing in the report to back up Prof’s comment that: “While ONE member of the JSC might therefore well have to recuse himself from the proceedings, the rest of the members of the JSC would be competent to continue considering the complaint.” Having read the article, it appears to me that this was the view shared by the majority in the JSC and not just by ONE MEMBER. Prof, please let us have an honest debate on these issues.
As for the Ngubane producing his “dissenting opinion” on issues that were supposedly confidential, I agree with Prof and Mouse that he was way out of line, just like Hogan was when she spoke out on the Dalai Lama issue. I strongly believe that if you are acting in a collective setup, you oath to obey the rules and code of conduct of that collective.
Having said that, I think it is quite disturbing that Prof, Mouse et al can lambast Ngubane for “breaking the ranks” and yet see nothing wrong with Hogan doing essentially the same thing. It’s the sort of hypocricy that leads to some amongst us elevating it (rather regrettably but understandably) to racism.
As improper as Ngubane’s actions were, we cannot run away from the fact that the information is now out in the open. It beats me how Mouse can see no merits on the argument that the majority of the JSC seems to have some bias on the JP.
My comments of course have nothing to do with the merits / demerits of the complaint against and by the JP.
“you oath to obey”
that should have been “you ought to obey”….
“My comments of course have nothing to do with the merits / demerits of the complaint against and by the JP”
And therein, of course, lies the crux.
When will the merits of serious complaints, such as those facing Hlophe and those which had faced Zuma, start getting the same attention as all the procedural side-issues?
Let the relevant bodies take everything into account, when they adjudicate the merits of a complaint/charges.
Mzo, as I said, one does not know exactly what happened behind closed doors but The Weekender report states that Ngubane says that, in the JSC’s confidential internal discussion on the issue, a “view was expressed that we must make sure that we at least start the evidence in order to have the matter partly heard before the current commissioners so that ‘when they (the new administration) start doing their shenanigans after the election on April 22 2009, we shall be seized with the matter’.” My reading of this paragraph is that someone raised this issue at the deliberations. But this was not the reason given for the hearing to proceed so the commissioners did not agree that this would be a good reason for proceeding. You seem to read the report differently. We will probably hear more as Hlophe pulls out all the stops to prevent a hearing from proceeding and thus to avoid accounting for his actions.
As I pointed out at the time, the Hogan issue is different as cabinet NEVER took an official decision on the Dalai Lama so the principle of collective cabinet responsibility did not apply to Hogan. If cabinet had taken a decision Hogan either had to resign or keep quiet – as I pointed out at the time.
Mrs Smith, obviously SOMEONE at NIA gave this info to Mr Zuma or his lawyer, thus breaking the law. If it was Fraser, he would be very stupid not to deny it, as handing over tapped conversations to a private person is a criminal offense for which one can be fined R2 million or sentenced to 10 years in jail. Mr Hulley and perhaps Mr Zuma also committed a crime by receiving the tapes. If Zuma handed the tapes to Hulley, the latter would claim attorney client privilege (as he in fact did) and will refuse to say who gave him the tapes. The person who handed over the tapes will never be convicted because those who need to investigate this and prosecute this crime will be all too aware what happened to Vusi Pikoli and will not want to ruin their careers. End of story.
Mrs Smith // May 4, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I share your frustations regarding the procedural issues. However, unlike you (evidently) I believe the likes of Hlope and Zuma are acting within their rights, enshrined in that wonderful document called the Constitution, when they challenge the procedural bundle-ups we see everyday. I can never advocate for disregard of the procedural processes for the purposes of reaching a particular goal.
Prof, on looking at the quote I provided in my post above, it is patently clear that the issues was “discussed by the Commissioners”. That to me is exactly the problem. Of course, “someone” must have raised it – otherwise how else would it have come up – and there is no way that the JSC would have given this as their reason for refusing the postponement application, regardless of whether this was indeed one of the reasons for refusing the postponement or not.
It would just be so much easier if the powers that be stuck to their jobs and left politics and other irrelevant issues out of these legal processes!!
“It would just be so much easier if the powers that be stuck to their jobs and left politics and other irrelevant issues out of these legal processes!!”
couldnt of said it better myself its apity hlophe thought politics was more interesting
just some info
Edward Mvuseni Ngubane
The second attorney’s representative, Ngubane, is a former president of Hlophe’s most consistent and vociferous defender, the Black Lawyers’ Association (BLA).
Ngubane co-chaired the Law Society of South Africa and is a director of Durban-based law firm Ngubane and Partners Incorporated. He opposed the move to have a formal impeachment hearing in the Oasis affair.
Chris Mcdaniel // May 4, 2009 at 4:26 pm
This is as relevant as saying white people in SA were the beneficiaries of Apartheid. The inference sought to be drawn is dangerous, to say the least!!
Chris – From that info it appears that Ngubane is not a stranger to making up his own mind on JSC issues concerning Hlophe JP before the issue has actually been decided.
Mzo – From that info supplied by Chris (and from the notorious fact that there are political appointments as well as appointments by representative bodies like BLA besides the judicial officers and others appointed to the JSC), it should be clear that during incidents like these there will be discussions of issues and that certain Commissioners (individually or collectively) will obviously take a stance that is partisan to the one side or the other. I still say that such does not mean that any of them should recuse themselves during or after those discussions – otherwise, what would the purpose be of having an organization like BLA nominate a representative to sit on the JSC? As in any other case, a presiding officer (or more than one where the bench/tribunal does not consist of an individual) may during the presentations before it become inclined towards one side or the other, and when that does receive outward manifestation, grouds for recusal cannot normally be founded thereon. (Remember the R v Silber AD decision, and the CC’s decision in Basson on the exceptio recusationis?) The BLA should however not have come out in support of Hlophe JP before the matter has even been dealt with by the JSC, thereby indicating that its representative on the JSC will resist any atempt at impeaching him. But then, logic sort of dictates that the matter should be deliberated – and everyone’s view taken into account before a vote is taken on the issue at hand – and then the split in decision and the reasons for the majority as well as the minority must be divulged so that the procedure remains transparent.
For fellow Scotus watchers:
Justice David Souter has resigned! Just after the Democrats took over.
This give Obama his first chance to nominate/replace a justice. Though it wont influence immedately the liberal / conservative breakdown of the Scotus – but it does give him the opportunity to nominate a young liberal justice. Which might influence US constitutional jurisprudence long after Obama himself has gone.
Mdu, you, as an “ordinary” lawyer, only believe the way you do because you are black, and are probably a Zuma supporter. You are not employing any real legal reasoning.
I have been saying for a while now that the JSC should require Judge Hlophe to submit his original air ticket for the Hearings. He had to have booked it before he fell ill. If he produces it, then nothing changes, but if he cannot produce it, then we all know that the illness was faked (reasoning on a preponderance of probabilities).
Also, the constitutional process for impeachment of judges is flawed because it makes an objective, legal process in the JSC subject to the subjective political whims of Parliament. We can have proof of flagrant disregard for the Constitution, and then allow party political issues to override any sanction. The Constitution should require a two-thirds majority to AVOID impeachment.
By the way, Mdu, I hope that you found my opening remark to be offensive. Also, I hope that every other reader found it to be offensive. The fact is, I do not know you, and so I cannot judge your motivation or your (undisclosed) reasoning processes.
Amd, I am sorry for picking on you to make a point – it was not personal. You see, us white people, and seemingly everyone who chooses to criticise Mr Zuma, are accused of being racist, playing “opposition” politics (as though there is something actually wrong with that).
In fact, anyone who does not toe the party line is accused of all sorts of motivations or a priori allegiances, but is never credited with reaching a conclusion based on reason and on the facts at hand.
All dissenters are craven opportunists masking ulterior motives, while all “believers” act fromurity of motive… you get the drift.
eish! I wish elections were held every month since we obviously ran out of exciting topics to discuss! I m just tired of Hlophe and the JSE, or rather JSC – i d rather discuss H1N1 swine flue!
I mean we all know that this n1h1, or izit h1n1 swine flue, must be yet another biological weapon by a white man (ag sorry – I mean wise man) to reduce the world population – surely it couldnt have just ‘jumped’ from pigs to humans, where was it all along? Its at times like these when I miss ‘experts’ like Wouter Basson jy weet!!!
Mzo // May 4, 2009 at 4:50 pm
you need to grow up, its got nothing to do with race. in order to understand what is going on in a movie one needs to know who the characters are. Its just interesting you got someone from the BLA who is now trying to ruffle some feathers.
And its no hidden secret the BLA is supporting Hlophe…so at the end of the day who are biased ones?
Your characters are people who are set in the Zuma camp.
1) Hlophe in support of Zuma
2) Barnabas Xulu is a Durban lawyer and a trustee of the Friends of JZ Trust
3)Edward Ngubane former president of the BLA
all of them which are members of the BLA – I guess brothers stick with brothers hey?
@spuy
lol damnit you on to us….yip its us white folks in the states who created this flu to kill black people. but you guys keep breading faster than we can kill you . we tried aids, that didnt work, swine flu isnt working….. oh well back to the drawing board
Spuy – In the run-up to presidential nominations in the US, a reporter asked a right-winger Congressman whether and when the US of A would see its first Afro-American President. The right-winger replied, “That’ll be the day when pigs can fly!”
So, … Barack Obama was elected and inaugurated as the US of A’s first Afro-American President and, what d’ya know!? Next thing?! … Swine Fl[ew]!!
Spuy – alle grappies op ‘n stokkie. Check this out – five other deadly viral or bacterial conditions (besides HIV AIDS), with their roots in different continents that affect not only black people, but white people alike: http://www.health24.com/Man/General/748-771-4174,38057.asp
Henri – May 4, 2009 at 12:57 pm; Mike Atkins – May 4, 2009 at 7:57 pm : I agree with your legal and political inputs. I agree especially that the Constitution should require a two-third majority to avoid impeachment; not to support it.
Mouse and Spuy, lol to that!
LOL Mouse!!
Anonymouse
Thanks for cheering us all up! It certainly puts the bugs in our political and legal systems in perspective.
Well, technically Barack isn’t an African-American as his ancestry wasn’t involved with slavery at all. He’s just American and black.
Chris, I might have provoked you on the swine flu topic, albeit on the lighter note. But your sarcastic reaction was deeply offensive, not to mention very very racist! For someone who always bring some humour now n then Chris, you ve disappointed me this time!
Spuy // May 5, 2009 at 11:27 am
far from spuy but if ur offended then i apologies, as i know u were joking about white people inventing swine flu was just yanking ur chain. trust me if i was remotely racist i wouldnt be in africa
Mike Atkins,
I could not agree with you more on the two thirds in the Constitution to AVOID being impeached. Hlophe matter aside, I wish this could be given a serious consideration as it would sort of loosen the screw the Parliamentarians have on our judiciary.
Garg Unzola,
What is the difference between an African-American and an American who is black?
I would presume that by now the concept no longer only covers those black Americans who can trace their roots to the slaves from Africa. It may well apply to others who come from other backgrounds as well. Please provide guidance.
Mouse and Spuy et al,
LOL. That was awesome especially when I read it in the morning. It really brightened my day. Thanks guys.
“He’s just American and black.”
Garg, if Obama’s father had been white and his mother black – would that have made him white? How can he be black, when he never says stuff like “Yo, m****rf****r”?
Clara // May 5, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Nor does Obama tear up roads in states where he lost the election?
How the heck are we ever going to develop a non-racial society if we keep harping on about race?
I’m sorry, but many of the comments on this particular blog entry are damn disappointing. The bigots should be ignored – pointing out their deficiencies or trying to argue at their level only elevates their unacceptable point of view.
This is leading our society backwards, not forwards. It’s about time we got embarrased about categorising people and positions as “black” or “white” again.
Well prof doing what he does best, undermining the intergrity and office of the PJ. I look forward to Hlophe taking the reigns from Langa P. Finaly to bring transformation to the judiciary in this counrty.
Dave A,
It would be gullible of us if we were to ignore these smouldering wonderings about race, etc. I am glad that these issues are being tackled HERE where people can hide behind anonymity and state their true feelings. When in the public eye, very few people who comment here would be able to articulate these views that Prof so spectacularly brings to the fore HERE. Sometimes people hold opinions not because they fervently believe in them but because that is all they know and are longing for anything else that is contrary thereto and which they can defend. It is more like a Christian attacking certain parts of the Bible in front of a Pastor in order to find suitable answers for those questions which he could not answer from his atheist colleague.
I submit that we should just debate these issues and just make sure that we are intending to make people understand and we would not ourselves be caught up in their opinions which you may consider take our society backwards.
Thanx Chris Mcdaniel for the info.
Now we can start to form an opinion of in which circles the demise and deathblow to the RSA constitutional order is probably brewed.
Not a deathblow, just a change in the constitutional order. It has always been true that rich people could wiggle out of criminal charges more easily than poor people. Now it is being formalised. By precedent, not by fiat, but formalised just the same; henceforth anyone wealthy and in power will be able to appeal to these judgements.
The most frightening thing is the way in which our great legal minds have connived at obviously criminal activity. And, of course, been supported in the press, and by our great Zuma punditry, the Seepes and the Gilliomees and the rest of the intellectual cesspit which our intelligentzia has become.
Dave A – wow! A real live old style liberal! What a breathe of naive fresh air!
Spuy – I sort of agree with you that this whole Hlophe thing is just getting to be a drag. I’d really like to get to the substance of the complaint, but “accuseds” these days seem to have too much energy for messing around in the Rules and procedures. I’m apt to say he should just get sent back to the Cape High Court and let him and the Cape Bar Council start with their mature and constructive: I hate you! No I hate you more! discourse.
Mike Atkins – “but if he cannot produce it, then we all know that the illness was faked (reasoning on a preponderance of probabilities).”
My I hope the Khayelitsha doctor who wrote that medical certificate doesn’t read this. You could be in trouble.
Chris Mcdaniel – I’m not sure the point you are trying to make with regard to the BLA. I’m a member of the BLA, but I wasn’t aware that it was operating as some clandestine pro-Zuma society. Can you send me the Minutes of that meeting? Thanks.
Henri – Thanks for the Supreme Court update! Exciting news. Wonder who he’ll pick and why?
As for the strange off-topic discussion on Obama’s African Amercianness, I’m a little puzzled at how the son of an African man and an American woman CANNOT be an African American.
Mpho // May 6, 2009 at 11:27 am
Chris Mcdaniel – I’m not sure the point you are trying to make with regard to the BLA. I’m a member of the BLA, but I wasn’t aware that it was operating as some clandestine pro-Zuma society. Can you send me the Minutes of that meeting? Thanks.
dont be silly. All im saying is im finding this whole thing interesting that Ngubane who opposed the move of impeaching Hlophe in the Oasis affair and who was actually in support of Hlophe complaining that all the judges are raciest, then Ngubane was also vocal on the raids on Zuma and his lawyer by the scorpians.
I think its interesting you got the BLA in support of HLophe you got hlophe in deep poopoo about Zuma and you got Hlophes lawyer belonging to the JZ trust and you got Ngubane who in my view is actually in support of Hlophe which all three gents have expressed there views in favor of zuma.
My point is i think Ngubane is a pawn used to maybe ruffle some feathers and find a loop hole for hlophe. I think the timing of it is very interesting esp when Hlophe has had no other legal avenue to take.
Now this pops up? give me a break
Chris,
Believe me, Mpho knows exactly about the point you HAVE made. All he now lacks is a good argument to counter it. Do not enable him to take the Zuma route (and now Hlophe and Selebi?). Let him come forward with a good counter argument and just avoid his interlocutory argument as it procures the multiplicity or proliferation of collateral issues.
Mpho // May 6, 2009 at 11:27 am
Do you think Obama is more African or more American?
Clearly, Ngubane was thinking of his future under a Zuma presidency.
Mpho,
What would I possibly have to fear in regard to my comments about the illness being faked (or at least planned in advance, regardless of whether he fortuitously became ill at the time by co-incidence)?
I am simply making the logical point that unless Judge Hlophe can prove that he had planned to go to Jhb for the planned start of the Hearings, then the most reasonable inference to draw is that he planned not to go. if that is so, then the illness was faked (or exaggurated). I am not saying that the doctor DID fake it – I am merely taking things to their logical conclusion.
And in any event, I would be able to defend myself on the grounds of public interest, given that I reasonably hold my assertions (of logic) to be true.
A brave article by Mike Trapido
“…Hlophe’s matter is now part of the Zuma presidency ie post elections and subsequent to the political conspiracy. There is no issue of race involved but rather the question of whether he did try to influence judges to rule in favour of Zuma for personal gain. If he did there is no place for Hlophe in our judiciary.”
So true!!
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2009/05/04/hlophe-decision-will-be-bigger-than-zuma/
You guys are clueless on what’s going on in the dispute between the Cape JP and the CC judges. In good time, I trust Pierre will eat his words when the truth comes out – and by jove it will. The JP is not the villain in this mess. You will see …
tweedie – Tho give uth a clue pweeze?!
The Chairman
Att : The Honourable Justice Lex Mpati
THE JUDICIAL SERVICES COMMISSION(JSC)
Private Bag X1
Constitutional Hill
Braamfontein: 2017
Johannesburg
19 May 2009
Dear Sir
Re : Selective Justice vs Bias; The Hon Justice Hlophe matter:
I have noticed with some concern recent communications released in the press with regard to claims of bias and procedural irregularities by The Hon Justice Hlope’s legal advisors in the matter currently before the Commission. As I understand it the Honourable Judge Hlope has been brought before the JSC to answer allegations of misconduct relating to a disciplinary hearing for allegedly trying to influence two Constitutional court Judges in President Zuma’s case then before the court.
I am somewhat mystified that the complaint is before the JSC at all as from my personal experience it is has been an acceptable practise to approach a Judge to influence a courts decision. Unlike the Hon Justice Hlophe allegations in our matter the presiding Judge was intentionally misled in order to ensure the corruption of a State authorised investigation for Fraud, assisted by false representations in support thereof, for financial gain.
Complaints regarding this behaviour fell of deaf ears, even with the assistance of the Chief Justices (who was told by the Cape Bar to mind his own business when he kindly tried to assist) as explained in a history of my experience attached hereto below (Submission against the office of the DSO), and it being reported to the Acting Judge President (Cape: Justice Traverso).
2
Unlike the Honourable Justice Hlope matter not only did our complaints not see the light of day, but it is with a certain sense of wonder that I have noticed the speed and alacrity that Judge Hlophe matter has been brought before the JSC, whilst complaints by members of civil society relating to conduct regarding the corruption of the courts that strikes at the very heart of our young constitutional democracy based on fundamental human rights and equity, are ignored.
It is submitted that the allegations against the Honourable Justice Hlophe for the alleged interference in a constitutional court judgement pale, with respect, by comparison should one wish to compare the two alleged transgressions. Whilst I admit that I am not well versed with the intricacies of the complaint against the Hon Justice Hlope (neither am I a lawyer) it would appear given our experiences that the argument that the investigation against Justice Hlophe relating to the ,” exclusive jurisdiction of the JSC . That body alone is authorsied to investigate allegations of gross misconduct”, suffers from a,”element of bias’ (Adv Owen Rogers SC (“fly in the ointment”) has the possibility of an “element” of truth.
I have taken the liberty of including an affidavit submitted to the States attorney in the Glenister case in support of the states closure of the office of the DSO in support of this communication, and trust that it might serve as an explanation as to the foundation of the submissions made in this communication for your attention. I also submitted an advert (Plea for Constitutional integrity) in the Business Day in 2005 which I believe encapsulates a brief description of my experiences with the,”manipulations”, your committee appears to be so determined in investigating. Would that our complaint have enjoyed the same conscientious attention.
Yours Faithfully
Justin Lewis
(0827291467)
(jrmlewis@hermanus.co.za)