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.
The Department of Justice this week tabled a Bill that would amend the Judicial Services Commission Act to deal with the Judge President Hlophe kind of case. Section 177 of the Constitution provides for the removal of a judge because of incapacity, gross incompetence and gross misconduct.
But when a complaint was lodged against Judge President Hlophe, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) decided that there was insufficient evidence to refer the matter to the National Assembly for impeachment. No Judge had ever been impeached in
The problem with the Hlophe matter was two-fold. First, a majority of members on the JSC who are not judges decided to believe Judge Hlophe for (what appears if one has to judge from news reports) political reasons. Second, those who thought that there was a problem with the conduct of judge Hlophe were hamstrung because there was no legal process in place to launch a proper investigation that would uncover the truth.
The amendments – apparently carrying the approval of the judicial leadership – will now provide for a process to deal with both impeachable and non-impeachable offences by judges.
Most importantly, according to the draft Bill, the initial investigation into misconduct will be conducted by a Committee comprising of the Chief justice and three other judges. No politicians will be involved in the process, thus safeguarding the independence of the judiciary.
In serious cases a three person tribunal – of which two has to be judges – will hear a case and make a recommendation to the JCS.
The amendments is clear that that no action could be taken or regulations gazetted without the consent of the Chief Justice because wherever the Minister is proposed to be involved he or she has to act “in consultation with” the Chief justice.
These amendments are absolutely crucial to establish a credible system to hold judges to account who does not comply to the basic minimum standards one would expect from a judge. It makes a clear distinction between impeachable offences (taking money, say and then doing favours for those whom one has taken the money from –something Judge Hlophe have been charged with) and non-impeachable offences (like drunken driving, say).
Let’s hope the Minister gets her act together and manages to pass the legislation as soon as possible.