JSC probing Hlophe outburst
2009-08-12 08:37
-
Zuma
But of course Zuma has been at the epicentre of South African politics, and his life has spilt...
Now R403.00
buy now
Cape Town – The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) is investigating Judge John Hlophe's latest attack on the Constitutional Court, to establish whether he broke any ethical rules and was guilty of misconduct.
Hlophe, the Judge President of the Western Cape High Court, said in an interview with the Mail & Guardian last week that he had refused to shake Chief Justice Pius Langa's hand after the recent JSC meeting because "I am not going to shake a white man's hand".
He claimed he was the victim of a political plot by Langa and his deputy, Judge Dikgang Moseneke, because he supported President Jacob Zuma.
Hlophe also said he didn't believe Zuma was guilty of corruption.
According to the report, Hlophe described the Constitutional Court's judges as "green togas, white justice" and claimed they had "sold him out" by continuing with Eurocentric justice.
JSC probe
JSC spokesperson Advocate Marumo Moerane SC, said on Tuesday they would first have to confirm the "reliability" of the report.
"We wouldn't want to continue on the basis of a wrong quote. We have to have our facts straight before we continue."
Pierre de Vos, a constitutional law professor at the University of Cape Town, said he couldn't believe that Hlophe had been that unwise to make such comments after the JSC had concluded a preliminary investigation into complaints against him.
The JSC will decide on Saturday if it would take further steps regarding allegations that Hlophe tried to influence two judges of the Constitutional Court to rule in favour of Zuma in a case that related to his former corruption trial.
Ethical rules
According to De Vos, Hlophe had broken several of the ethical rules that judges were required to follow:
- He had given comment on a pending case by saying he believed Zuma was innocent. The corruption charge had not formally been dismissed by a court and was therefore still pending. Directive 31 stated: "A judge should withhold any comment about the merits of a case before that judge or any other court."
- A judge has to keep himself from criticising another judge or branch of the judiciary in public and should withhold comment that could undermine the esteem and integrity of the judiciary.
- A judge should never behave improperly or disgracefully.
According to Moerane, it usually depended on "how seriously a contravention it was (of the directives) but it could amount to misconduct".
Hlophe couldn't be reached for comment on Tuesday.
