Comments on: What is going on with the Hlophe case?

By: Garg Unzola

Garg Unzola — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:34:02 +0000

Hlophe tries to dodge a JSC hearing and loses the little credibility he had.

Zuma dodges a criminal trial and is suddenly the victim of a political conspiracy.

Welcome to South Africa, where Justice is just the name of Jacob Zuma’s next wife.

By: Chris Mcdaniel

Chris Mcdaniel — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:36:35 +0000

Just an up date on the Hlophe matter

It would still appear that Hlophe is not going to bother to pitch up for the JSC hearing even his new lawyers…

This is just such lack of disrespect towards the process and a spit in the face of the Judiciary.

It would appear Hlophe seems to have contacts within the NIA to produce a List of Names who is implicated in the arms deal and who isnt.

It seems to be suspect now that some of the Judges were under surveillance

http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=977358

By: Henri

Henri — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 07:17:22 +0000

It’s so apt for the JSC to be wriggling in the mudbath they created themselves. The JSC, after all, selected and recommended this guy as JP material.
Can you begin to imagine the “quality” of some of the others recommended for lesser positions over the years!!!
Small wonder nobody of repute are even willing to make themselves available for the CC..
History will judge the JSC – at this stage its record is rotten – a public disgace. Pipped only by the HRC.

By: Samaita

Samaita — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:13:38 +0000

I think the Hlophe matter needs this:
1.All JSC members confirm availability for the next 30 days and check into Hilton Hotel till 1 May
2.All interdicts are heard on an urgent basis and decided.
As Harms said of Hlophe JP in the New Clicks matter at paragraph 38:
“The judicial cloak is not an impregnable shield providing immunity against criticism or reproach. Delays are frustrating and disillusioning and create the impression that judges are imperious. Secondly, it is judicial delay rather than complaints about it that is a threat to judicial independence because delays destroy the public confidence in the judiciary. There rests an ethical duty on judges to give judgment or any ruling in a case promptly and without undue delay and litigants are entitled to judgment as soon as reasonably possible.[39] Otherwise the most quoted legal aphorism, namely that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’, will become a mere platitude.”

Irie de javu, My Lord!

By: ozoneblue

ozoneblue — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:27:09 +0000

Anyway. I agree with Pierre on this one.

If Hlope is trying to avoid a JSC hearing, as seems to be the case, then he looses any credibility he may have had.

By: Tatera

Tatera — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:19:32 +0000

ozoneblue // Apr 2, 2009 at 11:35 am

The time has come for all good people (those who have more than one brain cell) to ignore OsoShit!!!!!

By: Tatera

Tatera — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:06:41 +0000

Pierre De Vos // Apr 2, 2009 at 11:05 am
Khosi, I thought you would like that! (I was going to say Ngalwana has “Bambi-like eyes” but thought that would perhaps be too naughty. . .

Does Ngalwana have a sister?

By: Katlego

Katlego — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:45:09 +0000

Your last paragraph was potent Pierre. Fucking awesome. Full of feeling, and very flowing. Good shit brother.

By: Mike Atkins

Mike Atkins — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:36:17 +0000

Given the other (rather tenuous) tactics to delay the JSC hearing, it would seem that there is a logical possibility that the “influenza” is not valid. There are, however, a couple of rather simple measures that could be taken by the JSC to bring some objectivity to the matter.

(1) Ask Judge Hlophe to submit documentary proof of the purchase of air tickets from Cape Town to Jhb, and of accommodation arrangements in Jhb for the duration. If onechecked the date of the doctor’s certificate, and if the judge did not have valid tickets, then one could reasonably draw the conclusion that the illness was not valid.

(2) Ask the judge to undergo a medical examination by an independent doctor, which would include blood tests to determine the strain of influenza. If he was willing to do this, then he could remove doubt as to whether his illness was valid.

If he was faking it, the question would be “why?”. Is there some way that, after the election, the executive (President, or Justice Minister) could assist him in avoiding the JSC hearings?

I think that it s difficult to predict how Parliament would deal with an impeachment recommendation, and I would say tha it was unwise to pre-judge this. Just to note that the ANC would not have to have even a simple majority to block the impeachment.

I maintain that the law on this is faulty, and that a two-thirds majority should be required to OVERTURN a recommendation to impeach by the JSC.

By: ozoneblue

ozoneblue — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:35:31 +0000

LOL.

And now see how our constitutional expert is doing back flips to stop South Africans from knowing the truth.

“How dare you share this information with a defence team? This is confidential information and I don’t see on what basis you could pass this on to private individuals.”

Constitutional expert Professor Pierre de Vos agreed with Nathan’s position on his blog, Constitutionally Speaking, saying that Zuma and his lawyer might have exposed themselves to criminal prosecution by accepting the tapes.

De Vos said he would be “surprised” if a judge had granted permission for the alleged eavesdropping, because such a judge would have had to believe that the subjects of the phone-taps were threatening the security of the State, or that Mbeki, for example, was planning a coup.

There was, therefore, “the very real possibility that the eavesdropping was in contravention of the (Interception of Communications) Act”, De Vos said.”

Sies Pierre. What are you afraid of boet ? What are the constitutional implications if the “independent” NPA and your beloved Scorpions have been abused for political purposes during all these years.