Judge Hlophe to challenge high court decision
WESTERN Cape High Court Judge President John Hlophe’s attorney, Barnabus Xulu says they would appeal the Gauteng High Court’s decision to reject their application to set aside the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) ruling that Judge Hlophe had committed gross misconduct and recommended an impeachment.
Xulu said they would appeal this decision “for the public’s confidence in the judiciary”.
“Fundamentally, the judgment does not reflect the established jurisprudence on the constitutional and legal issues raised by the parties, and the public is entitled to a judgment that accurately interprets the law, faithfully adheres to the established constitutional principles including judicial precedence and the correct approach to interpreting the Constitution.
“As this case is important for the public’s confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law, we have accordingly received instructions to take the matter on appeal,” said Xulu.
The impeachment recommendation follows the Judicial Conduct Tribunal’s finding that Judge was guilty of trying to influence the outcome of former president Jacob Zuma’s corruption case in 2008. The tribunal’s report stated that Judge breached sections of the Constitution when he tried to influence two justices of the Constitutional Court – Justice Chris Jafta and Justice Bess Nkabinde – to rule in a particular manner in a pending judgment between Zuma and the National Prosecuting Authority.
Judge now risks becoming the first judge to be removed from office since 1994.
Reacting to the judgment, Freedom Under Law (FUL), one of the respondents in the matter, welcomed the decision.
Acting Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba, Deputy Judge President Roland Sutherland and Judge Margaret Victor said: “In support of his contention that the court is empowered to order the National Assembly to hold a fresh enquiry, Hlophe JP asserts that the Speaker’s affidavit refers to a ‘decision’ that the National Assembly must make. He therefore contends that because the National Assembly is making a decision, it should conduct its own inquiry into whether or not he has committed gross misconduct and should be removed, otherwise it would be a rubber-stamping exercise.
“As a senior Judge President, Hlophe should have been sensitive to the rigid north star for judges performing their duties impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.
“However, taking all this into account, his litigation mission in this matter was really aimed at avoiding the far-reaching and devastating consequences to him personally.”