The Judicial Conduct Tribunal’s findings against Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe are ‘devastating’ to the continued presence of Hlophe as a member of the judiciary, let alone a Judge President.

The JSC ‘must surely recommend’ to the President the immediate suspension of Hlophe from judicial office, pending a confirmation of the findings by the JSC.

Writing on the Daily Maverick site, the anonymous legal expert Professor Balthazar points out that in looking at the conduct of Hlophe, the tribunal said: ‘We consider it our duty to vindicate the integrity of the Justices of the Constitutional Court, in particular Chief Justice Langa, Deputy Chief Justice Moseneke, Justice Nkabinde and Justice Jafta, whose integrity has been called into question by Judge President Hlophe’s unfounded and scurrilous attacks. They acted with honour to protect the institutional integrity of the apex court of our Republic.’

Balthazar says this is an important passage in that ‘it brings into sharp critical relief the calumny of Hlophe’s conduct, particularly against Langa and Moseneke’. 

Turning to the ‘key’ issue of seeking to influence the outcome of a judgment, Hlophe’s counsel had argued that there was nothing untoward about a judge discussing a case with judicial colleagues, notwithstanding that he was not a member of that court.

Balthazar says this was given short shrift by the tribunal: ‘It is also the lived experience of members of the tribunal, who are members of the legal profession, as judges and a practising attorney. That principle is deeply rooted in the legal profession. It is instilled through years of practice, either as an advocate or an attorney, from whose ranks most judges are drawn. With elevation to the judiciary, one carries it along. We do not know whether Judge President Hlophe ever practised law as either an advocate or an attorney prior to his elevation. However, by 2008 when the impugned conduct occurred, he had been a judge of the High Court for over 13 years, five of those as a Judge President. He is expected to have been aware of it, and on balance, he was.’

Finally, the tribunal placed particular emphasis on the evidence of Nkabinde, whom it stressed was not a friend of Hlophe.

Yet he visited her chambers, sought to engage with her about the case and to impress her with his contacts in important political places.

The tribunal said: ‘It seems to us the reason he told Justice Nkabinde all these, was to impress upon her that he had political connections, with the hope that when he discussed the Zuma-Thint matters, this would weigh heavily with her. This inference is irresistible, and points to an attempt to influence.’

Full analysis on the Daily Maverick site