THE Judicial Service Commission's decision "not" to go ahead with an inquiry into Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe's conduct undermined the public's trust in the judiciary, the high court in Pretoria heard yesterday.
Counsel for the legal advocacy body Freedom Under Law (Ful), and former education minister Kader Asmal, who joined as a friend of the court, argued the public's trust could only be restored by a full public enquiry.
Ful was seeking to set aside decisions by the JSC that decided to drop an enquiry into Hlophe in July 2009 and a decision by the majority of the JSC in August last year - saying the evidence did not justify a finding that Hlophe was guilty of misconduct.
The matter, it said, was "treated as finalised".
Hlophe faced a preliminary JSC inquiry after allegedly trying to influence two Constitutional Court judges.
The JSC decided to hold a preliminary inquiry, instead of a formal inquiry into the complaint by 13 Constitutional Court judges, and his counter complaint against the judges.
The judges accused Hlophe of trying to improperly influence judgments in pending judgments involving Jacob Zuma before he became president of South Africa.
Hlophe in turn accused the judges of violating his constitutional rights by publishing their complaint - before lodging it with the JSC and before giving him a hearing.
The JSC and Hlophe maintained in court yesterday that Ful had no legal interest in the matter and that it would be a waste of time and money to re-open the investigation, especially where all of the complainants wanted to put the controversy behind them.
Wim Trengove SC, for Ful, said Hlophe had accused the judges - and particularly the chief justice and deputy chief justice - of crass, pervasive and sustained dishonesty.
"If these accusations were well-founded, then the guilty justices including the chief justice and deputy chief justice were unfit for judicial office. But if they were unfounded, the making of these accusations rendered Judge Hlophe unfit for office."
Hlophe insisted there was no evidence his conduct could be regarded as gross misconduct and that it would not have been appropriate for the matter to have been referred to a formal hearing, including cross-examination.
The application continues before Judge Peter Mabuse.
Asmal wants Hlophe probe
THE Judicial Service Commission's decision "not" to go ahead with an inquiry into Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe's conduct undermined the public's trust in the judiciary, the high court in Pretoria heard yesterday.
Counsel for the legal advocacy body Freedom Under Law (Ful), and former education minister Kader Asmal, who joined as a friend of the court, argued the public's trust could only be restored by a full public enquiry.
Ful was seeking to set aside decisions by the JSC that decided to drop an enquiry into Hlophe in July 2009 and a decision by the majority of the JSC in August last year - saying the evidence did not justify a finding that Hlophe was guilty of misconduct.
The matter, it said, was "treated as finalised".
Hlophe faced a preliminary JSC inquiry after allegedly trying to influence two Constitutional Court judges.
The JSC decided to hold a preliminary inquiry, instead of a formal inquiry into the complaint by 13 Constitutional Court judges, and his counter complaint against the judges.
The judges accused Hlophe of trying to improperly influence judgments in pending judgments involving Jacob Zuma before he became president of South Africa.
Hlophe in turn accused the judges of violating his constitutional rights by publishing their complaint - before lodging it with the JSC and before giving him a hearing.
The JSC and Hlophe maintained in court yesterday that Ful had no legal interest in the matter and that it would be a waste of time and money to re-open the investigation, especially where all of the complainants wanted to put the controversy behind them.
Wim Trengove SC, for Ful, said Hlophe had accused the judges - and particularly the chief justice and deputy chief justice - of crass, pervasive and sustained dishonesty.
"If these accusations were well-founded, then the guilty justices including the chief justice and deputy chief justice were unfit for judicial office. But if they were unfounded, the making of these accusations rendered Judge Hlophe unfit for office."
Hlophe insisted there was no evidence his conduct could be regarded as gross misconduct and that it would not have been appropriate for the matter to have been referred to a formal hearing, including cross-examination.
The application continues before Judge Peter Mabuse.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos