By what standard should SA judges be evaluated? It is a question raised by the anonymous Professor Balthazar, touted by the Daily Maverick as one of the country’s foremost legal minds, in an article discussing the tortoise-like process that has led to the suspension of Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe.

Apart from a unanimous decision of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal, which found Hlophe guilty of gross misconduct in connection with the matter of attempting to persuade Constitutional Court judges to back former President Jacob Zuma in a pending ruling, Balthazar also points out there was the case of Hlophe being the alleged beneficiary of some R10 000 per month in consultancy fees paid by Oasis Asset Management, a matter he says has never been satisfactorily explained.

There was also the case of Hlophe finding against the claim of Old Mutual in which he failed to recuse himself in a multimillion-rand lawsuit in which his own attorney, Barnabas Xulu, had represented Matthews Mulaudzi, who was the defendant and had been accused of defrauding Old Mutual of R48m.

Says Balthazar: ‘One only has to read the unanimous judgment of the SCA, authored, I might add, by one of our finest judges, Judge Nathan Ponnan, who does represent an exemplar of judicial excellence, to realise that both in his refusal to recuse himself and the manner in which he handled the case, this was a case which demanded an investigation of judicial misconduct.’

The writer also alludes to the accusations by Deputy Judge President (and the current acting Judge President) Patricia Goliath of significant abuse that she suffered at the hands of Hlophe.

And he notes a further complaint, which still has to be determined by the JSC, is whether Hlophe is guilty of gross misconduct with regard to the alleged assault of Judge Mushtak Parker.

This chronology of Hlophe’s history elides over his jurisprudential record, writes Balthazar.

‘Remember, the man who now speaks in public of the theft of land once evicted 20 000 poor black people from the Joe Slovo settlement. Let us be clear: that there is fundamental structural racism in our society in general and within the legal profession, in particular, represents an urgent challenge which must be solved. But that fight has nothing to do with the conduct of one single judge who has built an impressive record which runs so violently against the values of a truly transformed democracy.’

Balthazar argues that even if it could possibly be argued that this litany of evidence against Hlophe is unreliable, the fact remains that he was unanimously found guilty of gross misconduct by the Judicial Conduct Tribunal.

Until that decision is proved to be wrong – either by the seemingly endlessly delayed appeal that Hlophe seeks to launch before the SCA against the full Bench decision of the Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) to dismiss his review application of the decision of the JSC to seek his impeachment, or a decision by Parliament is taken that he should not be impeached – a suspension is an obviously correct decision.

‘It stands to reason that the integrity of the judicial system is far better promoted by Hlophe stepping aside on full pay until such time as these decisions are finally taken.’

Full opinion piece on the Daily Maverick site