Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe received R3.2m in state funding to fight his potential impeachment for allegedly trying to sway a Constitutional Court ruling in favour of Jacob Zuma.

He will never have to pay that money back, thanks to the intervention of Zuma officials, even if he is found guilty, reports legal writer Karyn Maughan.

In response to questions from News24, the State Attorney reportedly revealed it had initially refused to grant Hlophe legal funding in the Constitutional Court's gross misconduct complaint against him because he refused to sign an undertaking that he would reimburse the money if he was found guilty.

According to the State Attorney, Hlophe then took his case for unconditional legal funding to the then-Justice Department's DG, Nonkululeko Sindane, who in 2013 ‘granted the request on the basis of the public interests given the complex legal issues involved’.

Hlophe's legal representatives were also required to ‘enter into an agreement’ with the State Attorney ‘to ensure that the charged fees were fair and reasonable’.

A disagreement between the State Attorney's Office and Hlophe's attorney, Barnabas Xulu, over what constituted ‘fair and reasonable’ legal fees would later result in the Judge President's impeachment investigation being delayed by two years.

The State Attorney found it was ‘clear that there is a history of inflation of costs when it comes to the legal costs claimed by Mr Xulu’ in the first Hlophe impeachment tribunal case, reports News24, quoting from an October 2019 memorandum.

But, in an effort to make sure the tribunal was not delayed any further by fees disputes, the State Attorney memo proposed Xulu be offered R20,000 a day for his services.

Hlophe's first impeachment tribunal did eventually get under way in December last year.

A JSC conduct tribunal, led by Judge Joop Labuschagne, heard evidence about Hlophe's alleged efforts to persuade Constitutional Court Justices Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta to rule in Zuma's favour in a crucial 2008 case. At the time, Zuma was seeking to challenge the legality of warrants used by the now disbanded Scorpions unit to seize 93 000 pages of evidence in the corruption case against him.

Hlophe maintained he was innocent of any wrongdoing and contended his discussions with Jafta and Nkabinde were completely innocent and motivated by his academic interest in the issue of privilege, which formed the basis of Zuma's challenge to the legality of the disputed warrants.

The News24 report notes that before the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) ruling that Zuma was not entitled to state funding of his corruption trial costs, it was common for government employees to receive funding for their legal costs in criminal cases linked to their work provided the functionary undertook to reimburse this funding if found guilty.

Hlophe being granted funding with no such undertaking is, therefore, almost unheard of, says the report.

Full News24 report (subscription needed)