JSC urged to recommend Hlophe suspension
The question of how the JSC will vote in the matter of Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe, considering what is termed its ‘abysmal track record’, is pertinent to the chances of Hlophe presiding as part of a three-judge panel on the Public Protector’s challenge to the constitutionality of an inquiry into her fitness to hold office.
Legal writer Marianne Thamm, in a Daily Maverick commentary, notes the fact that Hlophe – who faces possible impeachment after a unanimous finding of gross misconduct by a judicial tribunal – has allocated to himself the Public Protector’s challenge, is evidence of his nonchalance in the face of a judicial crisis.
Should the 12-member JSC on 4 June dismiss the tribunal’s findings of gross misconduct Hlophe will hear the Public Protector’s case.
The JSC would have to find a weight of evidence, however, to counter that of the tribunal and its scathing findings against Hlophe, suggests the writer.
Those who will decide Hlophe’s fate are Minister of Justice Ronald Lamola, acting Chief Justice Sisi Khampepe, Judges Mandisa Maya and Dunstan Mlambo, Advocates Dali Mpofu and Jennifer Cane, attorneys Lutendo Sigogo and Etienne Barnard, presidential nominees, Advocates Hlaleleni Matolo-Dlepu, Thandazani Madonsela and Doris Tshepe and Professor Nomthandazo Ntlama.
Finding Hlophe guilty of gross misconduct, however, would not be enough to stop him sitting on the Mkhwebane matter, notes Freedom Under Law’s Nicole Fritz.
She reportedly told the DM that for Hlophe to be removed, and no longer able to sit as a judge, a finding of gross misconduct by the JSC would need to be followed by a resolution in the National Assembly calling for his removal, supported by two-thirds of members.
President Cyril Ramaphosa would then be required to remove Hlophe and only then would he cease to be a judge.
‘We at FUL are urging that a decision to suspend Hlophe, should the JSC concur, be taken at the 4 June meeting. The President would need to act on that recommendation speedily but could do so ahead of the hearing of the PP matter on the 7 June’.
Fritz added: ‘Suspension isn’t a punitive sanction. It’s intended to balance interests, protect the public’s confidence in the administration of justice as the disciplinary process plays out.’
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
