Hlophe’s lawyers say ConCourt is obligated to hear him
Whatever ‘feelings of discomfort’ the justices of the Constitutional Court may have, these could not supersede their constitutional duties when dealing with the application that would invalidate the impeachment of former Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe, his lawyers said in submissions to the apex court this week.
This is the latest development in a 16-year saga that has seen a barrage of court cases mushroom from a complaint lodged against Hlophe by the Constitutional Court in 2008.
The Daily Maverick reports that the move is last opportunity to undo his removal, by challenging the process used by Parliament.
Hlophe and Judge Nkola Motata in February became the first judges to be impeached in democratic SA, after a parliamentary vote in favour of their removal.
This was followed by a letter from President Cyril Ramaphosa on 6 March confirming Hlophe’s removal.
Because of the litany of court cases that followed the original complaint against Hlophe, the majority of the 10 judges currently sitting at the Constitutional Court have been involved in matters relating to him.
The result is what Hlophe refers to as a ‘constitutional disability’, which could see seven of the justices having to recuse themselves, leaving the court without a quorum.
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.
