Former Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe broke trust with the judiciary and the public. ‘His impeachment sets an example to other members of the judiciary who may feel tempted to abuse their power,’ says the HSRC’s Professor Narnia Bohler-Muller, a constitutional law expert.

She notes Hlophe was the first black judge appointed to the Bench in 1995 and also the first who came from an academic background.

A mere five years later, in 2000, he became Judge President.

Writing on The Conversation site, Bohler-Muller says Hlophe has been both brilliant and controversial – on and off the Bench. She outlines some of the low points:

* On his appointment as Judge President he was also appointed as a non-executive director of Oasis’ Crescent Retirement Fund, receiving about R500 000 (US$26 000) in consultancy fees, which he did not initially declare to SARS or the Justice Minister.

* In 2004, the SCA overturned his judgment in favour of the then Minister of Health after finding that Hlophe had denied pharmaceutical companies the right to a fair hearing by unreasonably delaying his decision on their appeal application.

* In February 2005, Hlophe handed the then Justice Minister a report on alleged racism in the Cape Provincial Division. This document set out a range of allegations against colleagues. He also accused the late former Chief Justice Pius Langa of following a political agenda, and former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng of being an Islamophobe and a liar.

* In 2007, Hlophe asked government to buy him a Porsche in keeping with his status. Judges in SA drive Mercedes-Benz cars. A Porsche would have been more expensive and extravagant.

* In 2008, the judges of the Constitutional Court filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against Hlophe on the grounds that he had sought to influence the outcome of a matter relating to then Deputy President Jacob Zuma’s corruption charges. This was to prove to be the final straw that ended Hlophe’s career.

* In April 2021, the Judicial Conduct Tribunal found Hlophe guilty of gross misconduct. The decision was confirmed by the JSC, which recommended that Parliament impeach and ultimately remove him from the Bench as per section 177 of the Constitution.

In July 2022, the JSC recommended that Parliament suspend Hlophe.

The President did so five months later, pending a decision of the National Assembly on his impeachment. Parliament then proceeded with the impeachment vote – ‘a significant moment after 16 years of waiting’.

Bohler-Muller says as far back as 2008 Hlophe proved himself unfit for office.

Judges, she says, must be beyond reproach and what Hlophe did was unconscionable for a Judge President.

The oath of office of judges in chapter 17 of the Constitution requires them to ‘administer justice to all persons alike without fear, favour or prejudice, in accordance with the Constitution and the law of the Republic’.

Hlophe clearly broke his oath of office, going as far as trying to unduly influence fellow members of the judiciary to act unethically.

‘What he did was dishonest,’ says Bohler-Muller.

She notes The JSC recently adopted criteria for assessing and nominating candidates for appointments to the Bench.

‘One can only hope that the criteria and guidelines keep unfit candidates off the Bench and ensure that the appointment process is not hijacked for political purposes. In addition, if the commission provides clear reasons for its decisions, that would help to strengthen its authority, and might prevent frivolous, unfounded and protracted legal challenges.’

Full opinion piece on The Conversation site