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)
7 February 2007

JSC to revisit Hlophe matter?

The Cape Argus reports today that the JSC will re-open the matter of Judge President John Hlophe and the almost R500 000 he received from Oasis for “out of pocket expenses”.

Does this mean that there are discrepancies between the version provided to the JSC by Judge Hlophe (and accepted by a majority of its members) and the information that came out in court papers? Surely Justice Hlophe would not have been unwise enough to make claims to the JSC that can be contradicted by hard evidence?

My innitial response to this sorry saga has not changed.

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