Africa-Press – South-Africa. Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe’s legal representative has told the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) that he is contemplating applying to the court to have its decision to advise President Cyril Ramaphosa to suspend him reviewed and set aside.
But before the judge president approaches the court, his lawyer Barnabas Xulu has requested that the JSC furnish reasons why it failed to allow oral arguments at its meeting on Monday.
In a letter dated 27 July and addressed to the JSC, Hlophe’s lawyer writes: “…Judge President Hlophe asked the JSC to allow his legal representatives to make oral submissions to the meeting of the JSC due to the complexity of the issues involved in the matter. The JSC did not respond to that request and, without explanation, failed to provide an opportunity for Judge President Hlophe’s legal representatives to address the JSC meeting of 25 July 2022.”Judge President Hlophe is prejudiced by the JSC’s failure to hear [the] oral argument of his legal representatives,” Xulu argues.
Judicial Service Commission recommends Hlophe’s suspension to Ramaphosa
The JSC announced on Monday that it had resolved to recommend to Ramaphosa that he suspend Hlophe, pending a vote by the National Assembly on whether he should be impeached.
Now Xulu wants reasons why the JSC resolved to recommend to Ramaphosa that the judge be suspended, as well as details of the composition of the JSC’s meeting on Monday.
He requested the information by 3 August.
Speaking to News24 on Wednesday, Xulu questioned why the JSC had “rushed” to make the decision.
“They (JSC) gave an undertaking that let’s allow the court processes to unfold. There was an agreement that the issue of suspension was off the table. Let’s allow the court process; now we have just been granted leave to appeal by the Gauteng High Court. We filed a notice making it very clear we are pursuing it. All of a sudden, there is this rush now,” he said.
He added:
JSC spokesperson advocate Sesi Baloyi confirmed receipt of the letter and said the commission was considering the information Xulu had asked for and would respond before 3 August.
EXCLUSIVE |
Hlophe’s lawyers insist it’s ‘too late’ for JSC to recommend his suspension now
Responding to Xulu’s claim that the JSC had “rushed” their decision, Baloyi said that, even before Hlophe had brought a High Court application, the JSC had intended to decide on suspension.
Baloyi said:
In May, Hlophe was granted the right to appeal a High Court ruling that endorsed the legality of the JSC investigation and vote, which led to him facing impeachment.
‘Got it wrong’
A full bench of the Gauteng High Court found Hlophe’s application lacked merit. Still, it granted it on the basis that it “raised matters of significant public importance”.
Hlophe may become the first judge in South African history to be removed from office.
Despite him going ahead with his appeal, a JSC virtual meeting still voted in favour of recommending to Ramaphosa that he be suspended under the provisions of Section 177(3) of the Constitution.
Hlophe previously launched an urgent bid to block his possible suspension by Ramaphosa, pending his later unsuccessful challenge to the JSC process that resulted in him being found guilty of alleged gross misconduct. Hlophe’s legal woes emanate from his approach of two Constitutional Court judges who were hearing a matter involving then-ANC president Jacob Zuma in 2008.
At the time, Zuma was challenging the legality of warrants used by the later disbanded Scorpions to seize 93 000 pages of corruption trial evidence against him. Had Zuma succeeded in that case, which he did not, the State’s arms deal corruption prosecution against him would have been significantly damaged.
According to evidence led at the JSC Tribunal, Hlophe had told Justices Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta, among other things, that Zuma was being persecuted just as he (Hlophe) had been persecuted.
It’s official: Justice Mandisa Maya appointed deputy chief justice
He told both justices that he believed the Supreme Court of Appeal, which upheld the legality of the warrants in a majority ruling, had “got it wrong”.
Ultimately, the tribunal found Hlophe had embarked on a premeditated campaign to influence Jafta and Nkabinde in their evaluation of Zuma’s case, including telling Nkabinde that there was no case against Zuma and that people would lose their jobs when he became president.
The tribunal recommended that Hlophe should face impeachment, paving the way for the JSC to recommend he be suspended.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
