Judicial Service Commission: Judge John Hlophe must be impeached

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) has ruled that Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe must face impeachment, a move which paves the way for his removal from the bench.

The decision, announced on Wednesday, 25 August 2021, upholds a gross misconduct finding against Hlophe earlier this year by the Judicial Conduct Tribunal in relation to a complaint laid by Constitutional Court justices.

“At its meeting held on Wednesday, August 25, 2021, the Judicial Service Commission took the decision to uphold the report and recommendations of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal handed down on April 9, 2021,” reads a statement from the JSC.

It will now be up to Parliament to decide on Hlophe’s fate as MPs will vote on his impeachment.

“In pursuance thereof and in terms of the provisions of the Constitution, the matter will be referred to the National Assembly for its decision. The National Assembly and the parties will be furnished with copies of both the majority and minority views”

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC)

Can Judge Hlophe avoid impeachment?

Now Judge John Hlophe has until 3 September to explain to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) why it should recommend his impeachment.

“In line with the principles of natural justice, the JSC has invited the parties to show cause why it should or should not advise the president to suspend Judge President Hlophe pending the finalisation of the matter by the National Assembly,” the JSC further said.

Here’s a recap: Justices Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta, had accused Hlophe of trying to persuade them into ruling in favour of former president Jacob Zuma in 2008. This was in relation to Zuma’s arms deal case with French weapons manufacturer Thales, which is still before the courts.

Hlophe is said to have visited them separately in their chambers to discuss pending judgments in the corruption matter, which is in breach of Section 165 of the Constitution.

When the Tribunal ruled against Hlophe in April, it said his conduct seriously threatened and interfered with the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of the Constitutional Court and public confidence in the judicial system.