South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has recommended impeachment for Western Cape judge president John Hlophe, upholding a finding by a Judicial Conduct Tribunal that he is guilty of gross misconduct.
This will be the first time in the country’s post-1994 history that the JSC has made such a recommendation.
The finding of gross misconduct relates to a 2008 complaint by all the then justices of the Constitutional Court that the Western Cape judge president had sought to influence the outcome of a pending judgment relating to corruption charges against former president Jacob Zuma.
Zuma is on trial for the same charges.
At the time, Zuma was president of the ANC, and the charges were widely believed to be what stood between him and the presidency of South Africa.
Read Also: What next after Zuma fails to shake off corruption charges?
The JSC said it would be furnishing parliament with copies of its majority and minority views. It has also asked those who participated at the tribunal to submit written submissions on whether it should recommend to President Cyril Ramaphosa that Hlophe be suspended, pending an impeachment decision by parliament.
After years of litigation, the 13-year-old complaint was finally heard by a Judicial Conduct Tribunal last year. The tribunal found that Hlophe had improperly sought to influence two of the highest court’s justices — Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta — to violate their oaths of office.
Its report reads that during two separate visits to the Constitutional Court, Hlophe had, uninvited, raised the Zuma cases and said that:
• The Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment was wrong.
• There was no case against Zuma.
• Zuma was being persecuted just as he [Hlophe] had been persecuted.
To Nkabinde, he “bragged” about his political connections — said the tribunal — and said that people would lose their jobs once Zuma became president.
To Jafta, after saying the SCA had got it wrong, he said the now infamous words “sesithembele kinina”. The words, in isiZulu, were uttered in 2008. According to a witness at the tribunal, the words could mean variously “we put our confidence in you”, “we have faith in you”, “we put our trust in you”, “we trust in you”, “we rely upon [or on] you”, or “we are pinning our hope on you”.
While Hlophe had denied some of the allegations that Nkabinde had made, the panel said that, on a balance of probabilities, it believed her.
The tribunal’s three-person panel chaired by retired judge Joop Labuschagne, said the “irresistible” inference is that there was an attempt to influence.
