Quote of the week

Regard must be had to the higher standard of conduct expected from public officials, and the number of falsehoods that have been put forward by the Public Protector in the course of the litigation.  This conduct included the numerous “misstatements”, like misrepresenting, under oath, her reliance on evidence of economic experts in drawing up the report, failing to provide a complete record, ordered and indexed, so that the contents thereof could be determined, failing to disclose material meetings and then obfuscating the reasons for them and the reasons why they had not been previously disclosed, and generally failing to provide the court with a frank and candid account of her conduct in preparing the report. The punitive aspect of the costs order therefore stands.

KHAMPEPE J and THERON J
Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (CCT107/18) [2019] ZACC 29 (22 July 2019)
11 July 2008

Heads of Court chastise “prominent people” about Hlophe matter

The Heads of Court (excluding the Chief Justice and Judge President of the Cape), issued the following statement:

Press reports in the recent past have highlighted comment by various prominent people seriously critical of one or other of the parties to the dispute between the Constitutional Court Judges and Judge President Hlophe.

This is a matter of concern to the Heads of Courts and the judiciary as a whole. Such comment assumes the truth of one or other version of the facts. When widely publicised, as it has been, it may well prompt or entrench unwarranted conclusions in the public mind as to where the truth lies. Understandably, the matter has aroused intense public interest but it is neither in the public interest nor fair to the parties to prejudge the issue. It will be for the Judicial Service Commission to deal with the matters as it deems fit. The Heads of Courts therefore appeal to all concerned to refrain from such comment or its publication and to allow the Commission’s process to go forward unimpeded.

My first comments on the matter might have been off the mark, because I assumed and acted as if Hlophe was guilty. But after my older sister (an ex-judge) chastised me for not keeping an open mind (one must always obey one’s older sister), I have tried very hard in my comments not to make any assumptions about the guilt (or innocence) of any of the parties.

Of course, it is difficult not to take side in this matter. It is even more difficult if one of the parties – John Hlophe – issues a blistering if slightly incoherent 71 page attack on the Constitutional Court, masquerading as a defense of his actions, and this is leaked to the media (by whom?).

If the statement of the Heads of Court is asking us not to prejudge the matter, it is a timely and correct intervention. If, however, they are saying we should not discuss this issue of utmost importance to our democracy and that we should not analyse what is happening, then they are wrong. We live in a democracy in which debate and discussion must always be preferred above shouting and threats.

The trick is to debate and discuss these matters without assuming the guilt of any of the parties. This is not an easy thing to do when at least one of the parties is such a highly polarising figure, but we owe it to our democracy to try.

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