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)
8 October 2007

Kriegler attacks Hlophe, what now?

Retired Constitutional Court Justice Johan Kriegler launched a blistering attack of Judge President John Hlophe in the Sunday Times yesterday. Money quote.

The unseemly squabble that erupted when Oasis, Judge Hlophe’s secret paymaster, asked him for leave to sue Judge Desai was entirely predictable — and of the Judge President’s own making. It was improper for him ever to have accepted these payments from Oasis; for him then to have dealt with the application to sue compounded the original impropriety. Judge Hlophe could not have been unaware that a judge may not seek to exercise power in a cause in which he or she has an interest. Being on the Oasis payroll, whether as consultant, board member or expert adviser, was self-evidently such an interest and he should not have thought of dealing with the matter, initially or later. He thus not only compounded the original impropriety but manifested a lamentable lack of judgment throughout.

As we all know only too well, numerous other features of the learned Judge President’s tempestuous career at the head of the Cape judiciary have elicited adverse public comment. It is not necessary to refer to them here, save to observe that they reinforce the damning conclusion from the Oasis affair: Judge Hlophe is not a fit and proper person to be a judge. His retention of office constitutes a threat to the dignity and public acceptance of the integrity of the courts. This is indeed tragic, for this highly talented man carried the hopes of all who are passionate about transformation of the judiciary. By his greed he has betrayed us.

This attack shows how untenable Judge Hlophe’s position has become. Any other judge in his position would probably have sued Justice Kriegler for defamation – calling a person not fit and proper to hold judicial office is surely slander of the highest order. But Judge Hlophe dare not sue Justice Kriegler for fear of the allegations against him being proven to be true.

Can he really continue on the bench? If he does not sue Justice Kriegler he has no business ever hearing a case again, because he would have, more or less, admitted that what Justice Kriegler had wrote is true.

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