[ad_1]
Western Cape Chief Justice John Hlophe.
- Western Cape Chief Justice John Hlophe claims that the Constitutional Court complaint against him is motivated by racism.
- Hlophe also faces the prospect of impeachment for the alleged assault by another judge, abuse of power and offensive language.
- If charged, Hlophe will be the first judge in SA’s democratic history to be stripped of his office and benefits.
Western Cape Chief Justice John Hlophe will face an investigation into his fitness to be a judge next week, 12 years after he allegedly tried to influence two Constitutional Court judges to rule in favor of then-ANC President Jacob. Zuma.
The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) confirmed Thursday that a Court of Judicial Conduct, composed of retired Gauteng Judge Joop Labuschagne, Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Tati Makgoka and practicing attorney Nishani Pather, would hear the complaint filed. against Hlophe by the highest court in the country in 2008.
The hearing comes as Hlophe faces the possibility of a separate impeachment investigation for allegedly assaulting a fellow judge, verbally abusing his deputy, Patricia Goliath, and abusing her power.
READ | Hlophe attacks Chief Justice Mogoeng
At next week’s hearing, he is accused of trying to convince two Constitutional Court judges to make a fundamental ruling in favor of Zuma, at a time when the aspiring president is facing legal proceedings for related corruption. with the arms trade.
At the time, Hlophe framed the complaint against him as motivated by inappropriate and potentially racist motives linked to his authorship of a 2004 “Report on Racism”, in which he accused several white judges and advocates of being racist.
The heads of the court evaluated Hlophe’s report on racism and concluded that his accusations “against individual judges and some of the members of the legal profession have, in general, been refuted by interested persons.”
Persuade
Hlophe, however, was adamant about his allegations, which he claimed were the real reason the Constitutional Court alleged that he had tried to persuade Judges Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta, to no avail, to rule that the search raids and seizure made against Zuma and his attorneys … in which the Scorpions allegedly seized 93,000 pages of evidence, they were not legal.
Nkabinde and Jafta would tell the JSC subcommittee, first charged with deciding whether Hlophe should face possible impeachment, that the presiding judge told both separately that the Supreme Court of Appeals, which had dismissed Zuma’s challenges to the legality of the orders, had You misunderstood.
READ | Hlophe ‘shocked’ when reports link him to a plot to kill his deputy
According to Jafta, Hlophe told him that the cases related to Zuma should be examined “properly” because he believed that Zuma was being persecuted, just as he (Hlophe) had been persecuted.
Jafta said that Hlophe told him “sesithembele kinina”, which means “we put our hopes in you”.
In his testimony, Nkabinde said that Hlophe had told him over the phone that he “had a mandate and that they could talk about privileges.”
Challenges
The attorney-client privilege issue was one of the key challenges posed by Zuma’s attorneys to the legality of the Scorpions raids, as authorities had also seized multiple documents from his attorney Michael Hulley.
According to Nkabinde’s evidence, Hlophe had visited her on the chambers and started talking about the Zuma case. He said it was “an important case and that the issue of privilege was also important.”
“It had to be decided properly because the prosecution’s case was based on that aspect of the case.”
Nkabinde said he snapped back: “My brother, you know you cannot speak about this case. You have not been involved in the case, you have not sat on it and you are not a member of the court to come and speak the case.”
She testified that Hlophe had told her at the time that he did not intend to interfere with her work, but went on to explain “that the point is that there is no case against Mr. Zuma.” He reiterated that “Mr. Zuma has been persecuted, as he was persecuted.”
READ | Hlophe says Mogoeng should face impeachment
During his interview with the JSC subcommittee, Hlophe denied much of the evidence provided by Jafta and Nkabinde, and suggested that they may have misinterpreted some of his comments. He categorically denied trying to influence any of them.
He also lashed out at the then Chief Justice Pius Langa and his deputy, Dikgang Moseneke, who, he said, should face impeachment for “orchestrating the complaint” against him, a move that is now being repeated in his response to the recommendation. of Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng that he is facing a prosecution court in connection with his conduct towards Goliath.
In a decision that was later overturned by the Supreme Court of Appeals, the JSC decided not to proceed with a possible impeachment investigation against Hlophe, despite the huge differences between her testimony and that of Nkabinde and Jafta.
Now, after years of legal wrangling, multiple court challenges and requests for disqualification, the lawsuit is finally set to proceed next week.
If charged, Hlophe will be the first judge in South African democratic history to be stripped of his office and benefits.
However, given the history of this convoluted and acrimonious process, it is unlikely that he will let that happen without a bitter and potentially litigious fight.
