News24

Tribunal recommended for Hlophe matter

2012-09-06 12:42

Johannesburg - The Judicial Conduct Committee has recommended that a tribunal be appointed to investigate a complaint by Constitutional Court judges against Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe.

"The committee considered that this complaint, if established, will prima facie indicate gross misconduct which may lead to impeachment," the committee said in a statement on Thursday.

"Accordingly, the committee has recommended to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) that a tribunal be appointed to investigate it."

Zuma corruption judgment

The committee took into account the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) that the JSC must decide whether Hlophe was guilty of gross misconduct or not.

In 2008, Constitutional Court judges complained that Hlophe had visited some judges at the court in Johannesburg and had inappropriately alluded to a judgment relating to President Jacob Zuma and arms company Thint before corruption charges against them were dropped.

They regarded this as an improper attempt to influence the case.

Hlophe, affronted that the judges had also sent a copy of the complaint to the media before he had had time to deal with it, laid a counter complaint.

A lengthy stop-start parallel process of JSC hearings and court challenges began.

The matter was ultimately heard in the SCA with rulings in favour of Western Cape premier Helen Zille and lobby group Freedom Under Law (FUL). The SCA ruled that the JSC must reconsider both complaints.

Zille had complained that as premier she should have been included in the JSC's preliminary investigation into the matter. FUL had complained about utterances Hlophe allegedly made.

Oral submissions

The issue also tested the Constitutional Court when Hlophe approached the judges for leave to appeal. They turned down the application for leave to appeal and the JSC ruling stood.

Oral submissions were then made on August 24.

A second decision released on Thursday by the conduct committee related to FUL.

The committee said it accepted that some of the utterances made by Hlophe after the complaint was laid by the judges, "if established" indicated gross misconduct on Hlophe's part.

At the time the comments were reportedly that the judges were “dishonest, untruthful, malicious, vindictive and driven by a political motive".

Proper course of action


But the committee considered the circumstances under which the utterances were made and came to the conclusion that in view of such circumstances it was not likely that such misconduct would justify impeachment.

The proper course would be an inquiry in terms of the Judicial Service Act 9.

"This would, however, expose the judge to complaints and penalties that were not there when the complaint arose.

"This would violate the established rule of law against retrospective application of legislation. This complaint could therefore not be proceeded with and was accordingly dismissed," the committee said.

Comments
  • andrew.mackie.90 - 2012-09-06 13:06

    This matter has been in process and going on for 4 years now and it is high time a decision must be reached. Taxpayers are continually being burdened with expenses as no finality is reached. These costs mount up and I am sure it is part of the R675 billion of wasteful spending by government over the past years.

  • erich.goosen - 2012-09-06 13:13

    If ever there was a reluctant body to handle this straight forward matter, then it is the JSC. It shows you political affinity outweighs the 'noble' principles of justice for all. Shame on you!

  • jurie.nel.3 - 2012-09-06 13:41

    There is merit in both the aforegoing posts. However, I don't purport to understand the legal issues and implications involved - I can only trust that the learned and wise judges come to the right conclusion in the near future.

      bernpm - 2012-09-06 14:55

      even "learned and wise judges" keep an eye on their sources of income (dragging a case) and assuring future income sources by jumping on the right horse. They are only human.

  • Lunga - 2012-09-06 15:01

    Any legal fundis out there understand this? Comment below and explain to me.

  • pages:
  • 1