I have read heads of argument in Hlophe’s matter. In my view the appelants failed dismally to deal with what I regard as the cornerstone of Hlophe’s argument, which is that he had a right to be heard before going public. That right seems to be also founded on the Code of Conduct: Judicial Ethics in South Africa. The following extracts from respondent’s heads of arguments are telling:

From majority judgment:

“[25] There is a salutary rule of practice in our courts that if the head of court or a senior judge receives a complaint from a litigant or member of the public alleging some form of judicial misconduct on the part of a judge, the head of court or senior judge refers the complaint to the judge concerned for the comments of the latter before considering or referring the complaint to the JSC. This happens whether the member of the public requests the head of court or senior judge to refer the complaint to the JSC or not. This rule of practice is applied even where the complainant is another judge. In fact, in the case of complainant judges, the Code of Conduct: Judicial Ethics in South Africa (Guidelines for Judges), which was adopted at a meeting of the Chief Justice and senior judges held in Pretoria on 03 April 2000 provides that:

“A judge who reasonably believes that a colleague has been acting in a manner which is unbecoming of the judicial officer, should raise the matter with that colleague or with the head of the court concerned” (Rule 21)”

From Rule 20:

“When a judge decides to take action in response to perceived misconduct, the reference to the appropriate authority should be made in a neutral fashion.”

“Before commenting in a judgement or in public on the conduct of a particular practitioner or prosecutor, the judge should give that person the opportunity to deal with the allegation.”

Any rebuttal Prof???

“The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) will hear the matter relating to Cape Judge President John Hlophe between April 1 and 8, spokesperson Marumo Moerane said on Wednesday”

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=nw20090325203610982C594685

The judiciary is about to undergo major transformation. Hlope will certainly loose in the SCA but the matter of the complaint will be very difficult to resolve.

The key witnesses are recalcitrant. Why is it taking so long for the JSC to dispose of this complaint. What will parliament say ? WIll they impeach the man?

If the university decided to suspend me and institute disciplinary proceedings against me (and because I am supposedly so famous and important) they feel they need to inform the media (maybe because I am being suspended and under investigation for inflating grades or passing students who never passed the exam but gave me a few thousand Rand, the integirty of the University will be at stake and hiding the fact will compromise their integrity. The University would surely therefore have EVERY right in the world to inform the media about this proven fact, namely that it has suspended me and has lodged a disciplinary process. As our Courts have often stated: NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE INVESTIGATED AND ACCUSED AND WHEN ONE IS ACCUSED OR INVESTIGATED THIS WILL INEVITABLY AFFECT ONE”S standing in the community and cause one pain and suffering. It is the price we pay for not living in North Korea (or China for that matter). You might pine for North Korea or China, but I will take the rough and tumble of democracy any day. But maybe I am weird for wanting to live in a country where I can more or less say what I think and for not wanting to starve to death or be tortured to death because I did not like the Dear Leader’s haircut and said so publicly?