Emotions aside, please

Cape Judge President John Hlophe's photograph sourced from Mail & Guardian Online.


THERE is no doubt that Cape Judge President John Hlophe is a controversial figure whose sense of judgment raises question marks about his fitness for the bench.

The prime example of his lack of unimpeachable integrity as a jurist and a judicial officer is his Oasis affair. It’s really dishonest and unethical for a sitting judge to be remunerated by a private company. In the Hlophe case it is said that he was paid a monthly retainer of R10 000. In total, it is alleged, he pocketed about half a million rand. Even worse, it was a clear case of conflict of interest when he granted Oasis permission to sue a fellow judge at the Cape Bar.

Another example is that of Hlophe’s son getting a bursary from a law firm. One of the former partners at the law firm was known to have been Hlophe’s pal at varsity. When brought before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Hlophe played the “careless parent card” and professed to have been not aware who was footing his son’s academic bill! It is baffling that a man of Hlophe’s intellect would not know who pays for his child’s education.

In true Hlophe style, the man has limped from one controversy to another, the recent one being allegations by two Constitutional Court justices Chris Jafta and Bess Nkabinde that he tried to influence them to rule in favour of ANC leader Jacob Zuma in his case against the National Prosecuting Authority. But as it has turned out the JSC dropped all the charges against Hlophe – this much to the dismay of many so-called protectors or advocates of the Constitution who wanted to see Hlophe nailed at all costs.

According to the Democratic Alliance, the Independent Democrats, AfriForum, some celebrated legal experts and media personalities, Hlophe was let off the hook because of his connections to the ruling party. They claim that the JSC decision leaves a cloud hanging over Hlophe and the judiciary. Some of these political leaders, commentators and Hlophe detractors are forgetting that their own sense of judgment is clouded by their dislike of the man.

Why did the JSC decide not to proceed with the Hlophe matter? It’s quite simple, really. “Neither of the judges (Jafta or Nkabinde) expressly says that Hlophe JP (Judge President) asked that the cases be decided in Mr Zuma’s favour,” states the JSC in its majority decision.

I attended the JSC three-man preliminary probe in Johannesburg. One of Hlophe’s accusers, Jafta, gave evidence that was more like a defence of Hlophe. He was unambiguous in saying that Hlophe never tried to influence him to deliver a pro-Zuma ruling. This is where the Constitutional Court case against Hlophe was lost. Even Nkabinde corroborated Jafta’s assertion that there was never any naked intention on the part of Hlophe to sway the outcome in favour of Zuma. Add to this lack of concrete evidence against Hlophe, it would have been unwise for the JSC to proceed with the matter.

It’s a pity that in a constitutional democracy which guarantees freedom of expression people like Wits University’s law academic Kevin Malunga were crucified for not conforming with the seemingly prevailing anti-Hlophe sentiment.

The Hlophe matter should teach us that every case must be treated on its merits.

Cedric Mboyisa is political editor of The Citizen. This column first appeared in The Citizen newspaper.