CAPE JUDGE PRESIDENT HLOPHE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL SERVICES

UNCLAS CAPE TOWN 000086 E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV KDEM SF SUBJECT: CAPE JUDGE PRESIDENT HLOPHE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL SERVICES COMMISSION ¶1. (U) Cape Judge President John Hlophe, regarded by some as a future chief justice under a Zuma presidency, is being probed by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). The commission hearings center on a complaint against Judge Hlophe, brought by 13 Constitutional court judges who claimed he tried to influence them in legal proceedings in favor of ANC president Jacob Zuma. Hlophe instituted a counter-complaint alleging his rights had been violated by the Constitutional court judges when they made their complaint public. ¶2. (U) The court proceedings started in the Johannesburg High Court (JHC) in 2007 when Hlophe challenged the Constitutional court judges' complaint and its publication. Hlophe alleged that his rights had been violated by the Constitutional Court and he applied for an order to have the action by the Constitutional Court against him declared unlawful. On September 26, 2008, the JHC ruled that the Constitutional Court had indeed violated Hlophe's rights. The matter went on appeal and on April 1, 2009, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) held that the judges of the Constitutional Court had not violated the right of dignity (and various other rights) of Hlophe when they went public with the initial complaint. The SCA also declared that the judges did not act unlawfully by not allowing Hlophe to make representations prior to lodging the complaint with the JSC. The SCA pointed out that there was no authority anywhere in the world that obliges complainant judges not acting as a court but acting as individuals to invite a judge to be heard before laying a charge. On the contrary, the SCA stated that allowing Hlophe to make such representations at this stage could very well have undermined the ensuing complaint processes of the JSC. ¶3. (U) On March 27, Hhlope's case reverted to the JSC for a final decision. On the same day, Hlophe's lawyers wrote a letter to the Commission accusing it of bias and raising several issues on the intended procedure to be used by the JSC. The proceedings were interrupted on April 1 (the day the SCA judgment was read) when Hlophe's lawyer Vuyani Ngalwana presented a sick note saying Hlophe had "severe influenza" and could not attend. The hearing was adjourned while the court decided whether to proceed without him. In a further development Hlophe fired his advocate and hired new Counsel. This latest move is seen as merely another attempt at delaying the case and avoiding impeachment. On April 4, Hlophe again applied for a ten day postponement in order to allow his new counsel to acquaint himself with the case. The JSC is, however, determined to pursue the matter against Hlophe and only granted a two day postponement. It appears that Hlophe's strategy is one of delay and postponement and the matter is set to continue on April 8, 2009.