Your headline "Judges in punch-up, Constitutional Court colleagues up in arms against Hlophe" of June 20 broke the silence of the law of rule unfolding in the judiciary.
It's the first time a judge is forced to divulge details of his conversation with the accused in a matter based on hearsay. In fact, any judge has a right to dissent to be part of mediocre jurisprudence.
It's not clear exactly what the Constitutional Court judges were trying to achieve by issuing a media statement accusing the Cape Judge President John Hlophe of improper conduct.
Hlophe allegedly attempted to influence cases involving ANC president Jacob Zuma, and the court released the statement before a formal complaint was served on the Judicial Service Commission.
One cannot rule out the possibility of sinister forces wanting to use Hlophe's saga to cast a doubt on Zuma. The whole jiggery-pokery of separate rules for different people feeds into a suspicion of tampering with state institutions in order to achieve a particular political agenda.
It can equally be argued that under the circumstances the courts cannot guarantee Zuma a fair trial on the grounds that the Scorpions have failed to effectively investigate and charge other role players in the arms deal.
It's only fair to drop the charges against Zuma in favour of a judicial commission so that the rule of law can take its course.
Morgan Phaahla, Ekurhuleni