Hlophe resigns, Malema fails to attend hearings
In what appears to be a strategy to bring the constitutionality of the judicial recommendation process into question, MKP John Hlophe has withdrawn from the JSC.
Furthermore, EFF leader and Commissioner Julius Malema did not attend the sitting yesterday – and did not give the Chief Justice or the JSC any reason for his non-attendance.
A News24 report says while the JSC sat yesterday without Hlophe, MKP chief whip Mzwanele Manyi wrote to National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza and announced that the party had withdrawn Hlophe from his designation to the JSC.
‘This withdrawal takes effect immediately,’ Manyi wrote. ‘Kindly notify the chairperson of the JSC, Honourable Chief Justice Maya, of this development.’
Earlier, the MKP had written to the JSC requesting a postponement of the JSC interviews scheduled for this week, but was refused and so turned to the Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) with an urgent application which was heard by Judge Stuart Wilson on Friday.
The MKP and Hlophe argued the JSC was not properly constituted in Hlophe's absence and that the full Court's decision tainted all six of the MPs designated to sit on the JSC.
In the ruling handed down on Saturday, Wilson rejected this argument. He said: ‘What matters is not simply whether a designee is absent, but whether there is a justification for that absence. In this case, Dr Hlophe's absence from the October 2024 sitting of the JSC is not merely justified: it is mandated by the full Court's order.’
He added that the Western Cape High Court's order was clear in that it only applied to Hlophe, and not the other designates.
‘The issue was simply not before it. Nor does it follow that to impugn Dr Hlophe's designation is to impugn the designation of the other five National Assembly members. Dr Hlophe was restrained from participating in the JSC's work because he is a former judge removed from office for gross misconduct. None of the other designees bears that characteristic.’
It appears from MKP MP Nhlamulo Ndhlela's statement announcing Hlophe's withdrawal that the party refuses to accept this ruling, says the News24 report.
The statement said: ‘The MKP will not allow the name of Dr John Hlophe (MP) to be associated with or used to legitimise a patently misleading, fraudulent, and improperly constituted JSC. The MKP maintains that the composition of the JSC – without Dr Hlophe's participation as a representative from the leading opposition party – is in violation of section 178(1)(h) of the Constitution. This JSC has failed to meet the prescribed minimum threshold of three members from the opposition parties.’
He further claimed that the ‘will of the overwhelming number of people of SA who voted for participation of Dr Hlophe in all Parliament duties assigned to him has been severely and constitutionally undermined’.
Parliament spokesperson Mothapo Moloto said Speaker Thoko Didiza has accepted the letter.
Meanwhile, DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach claimed the MKP's withdrawal of Hlophe as a victory, saying it is the result of the DA and civil society's ‘relentless pursuit of justice and integrity within SA's judiciary’. She said they ‘have long argued that an impeached judge with a record of gross misconduct should not have a seat on the JSC’.
According to the News24 report, Breytenbach said: ‘For years, the DA has led the fight to hold Dr Hlophe accountable, and his resignation from the JSC reinforces the principle that only individuals of the highest ethical standards should be entrusted with shaping our judiciary. It remains to be seen whether or not this is another cheap stunt to disrupt the sitting of the JSC, but his departure is a certain win.’
Judges Matter head Alison Tilley said she was surprised by MKP's decision to withdraw from the JSC after they put a lot of effort into attempts to have Hlophe represent the party at the JSC.
‘He shouldn't been put forward in the first place,’ stated Tilley.
‘The October sitting of JSC interviews will go ahead without an MKP replacement.’
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.
