Quote of the week
Mr Zuma is no ordinary litigant. He is the former President of the Republic, who remains a public figure and continues to wield significant political influence, while acting as an example to his supporters… He has a great deal of power to incite others to similarly defy court orders because his actions and any consequences, or lack thereof, are being closely observed by the public. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will do significant damage to the rule of law. As this Court noted in Mamabolo, “[n]o one familiar with our history can be unaware of the very special need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law”. Mr Zuma is subject to the laws of the Republic. No person enjoys exclusion or exemption from the sovereignty of our laws… It would be antithetical to the value of accountability if those who once held high office are not bound by the law.
Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 18
New ambasssador for Zimbabwe?
The Cape Times report today (subscription required):
The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) convenes today to deal with the thorny matter of impeachment proceedings brought against Cape Judge President John Hlophe, who is accused of “gross incompetence” by a top city advocate.Peter Hazell, SC, asked the JSC to investigate a string of accusations against Judge Hlophe last August. At its last meeting, the commission decided to give Judge Hlophe the right to reply before the matter could be finalised.
One of the complaints levelled against Judge Hlophe is that he was in contempt of court because of his public statements that he “couldn’t care less” about the findings of the Supreme Court of Appeal in the case between the health minister and the pharmaceutical companies.
Judge Hlope’s response, unfortunately, is not very encouraging. “With respect,” he said” “I do not think the JSC has criminal jurisdiction over judges.” Which rather misses the point, which is that judges are constitutionally bound not to act in a manner that could be construed as grossly incompetent or as constituting gross misconduct.
I am glad I am not on the JSC and I am sure glad I am not the Chief Justice who will have to try and sort out this mess. It seems like a no-win situation. Judge Hlophe will not be impeached by the JSC because his missteps “only” show stupidity and arrogance on his side. If these were impeachable offences many a judge would have been out of a job. Unfortunately Judge Hlophe’s reputation will be further tarnished by the process and respect for the judiciary will be further compromised.
At the same time, the reactionary lawyers and judges who predicted (and was hoping for) his downfall from the start of his tenure, will be able to point to Judge Hlophe when they moan about the perils of transformation. He has become the worst kind of poster child for transformation because he has misused arguments about racism to help excuse his unwise behaviour.
The best possible outcome would be if Judge Hlophe could be persuaded to step down. Don’t we need a new ambassador in Zimbabwe or Iraq?
