Judge President John Hlophe ‘vindicated’ by leave to appeal possible impeachment

WESTERN Cape Judge President John Hlophe’s legal team said they were vindicated by the ruling of the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, which has granted him leave to appeal against his potential impeachment.

Barnabus Xulu SC said they were confident the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) would come to a different ruling, but that they also intended taking the Minister of Justice to court for prejudicial treatment relating to costs not being awarded.

“We are vindicated by this ruling. We believe, for reasons advanced in our application that the SCA will come to a different decision, which eventually will clear our client and give clarity to this long outstanding matter. The shocking thing is that our client legal team have been refused their fees, whereas the Concourt judges’ legal team and the Judicial Service Commission is being favoured,” Xulu said.

“This act is prejudicial, and has been raised by our client, Judge President Hlophe, to Chief Justice Zondo, but no response has been received following months of correspondence to the department, and has necessitated that our legal team take, inter alia, the minister of justice to court for the same reason,” said Xulu.

The impeachment recommendation followed the Judicial Conduct Tribunal’s finding that Judge Hlophe was guilty of trying to influence the outcome of former president Jacob Zuma’s corruption charges in 2008.

The tribunal’s report stated that Judge Hlophe breached sections of the

Constitution when he tried to influence two justices of the Constitutional Court to rule in a particular manner in a pending judgment between Zuma and the National Prosecuting Authority.

A full Bench of the Gauteng High Court in ruling, said while Judge Hlophe’s application lacked merit, it did hold matters of “significant public importance”.

“The controversy embraces both obvious and several nuanced issues of critical significance to the administration of justice,” their judgment read. “These include the integrity of the judiciary as a whole and the norms by which it falls to be held accountable and the proper functioning of the Judicial Service Commission.”

On these grounds the court ruled that the application for leave to appeal was sound and it was granted.