The possibility that a Judge President attempted to improperly influence Constitutional Court judges for political ends has shaken our faith in the independence of the judiciary and, indeed, our entire constitutional order.

If Judge Hlophe did attempt to sway Constitutional Court judges to support ANC President Jacob Zuma's appeal against the admissibility of evidence in his corruption trial, it will take time and conscious effort to restore public trust in the judiciary. If Judge Hlophe did not do so, it means the full bench of the Constitutional Court lied in its statement - which, needless to say, would throw us into a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Let it be said: It is highly unlikely that a full bench of the Constitutional Court would make such an unprecedented allegation against a senior Judge without clear and sufficient evidence.

If the allegations against Judge Hlophe are true, then we must question what motivated him to act in this way. Why would a Judge risk his career to further the ends of a politician?

The answer, 14 years into ANC rule, is this: An ambitious Judge President, who wants to get ahead, may actually consider it a greater career risk to demonstrate independence from the dominant faction of the ruling party. He may consider aligning himself with Zuma a shrewd career move.

It should be remembered that Zuma, should he become President, will appoint the Chief Justice. It should also be remembered that Zuma has claimed repeatedly that the ANC is more important than the Constitution. It follows that his supporters would seek to demonstrate the same priorities, especially if they seek the favours that Presidential patronage can bestow.  When a Judge is alleged to have placed a party above the Constitution, we see how far the cancer has spread.

Indeed, Judge Hlophe is alleged to have told Constitutional Court Judges Bess Nkaminde and Christopher Jafta that "he was going to be the next Chief Justice" and that they should "think about their future" before telling them to rule in favour of Zuma.

On this evidence, Judge Hlophe emerges as the personification of the ANC's policy to "transform the collective mindset of the judiciary" to make it more compliant with the ruling party. His alleged actions are less surprising (but no more excusable) when you consider the pressure exerted on judges, and black judges in particular, to side with the ANC.

Many of the ANC's attacks on the judiciary are racial in nature, such as the ANC accusing Judge de Villiers of belonging "to the class of dinosaurs that internalised the workings of white domination"; or Jacob Zuma's opinion that a ruling by Judge Combrink was "proof of the resistance to transformation by some of South Africa's judges"; and former ANC Youth League President, Fikile Mbalula, referring to Judge Hilary Squires as an "old Rhodesian apartheid judge". The ANC's attacks on these judges all reveal the same subtext - they are obstacles to transformation and must therefore be removed.

When it comes to black judges, the ANC's subtext is different. There is an expectation that, as beneficiaries of transformation, black judges will put the ANC first. If they do not, they risk provoking the ire of the party leadership - as Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke discovered earlier this year. Speaking at his 60^th birthday party, Justice Moseneke said: "I want to use my energy to help create an equal society. It's not what the ANC wants or what the delegates want; it is about what is good for our people."

In response, the ANC's National Working Committee expressed "shock" and said that Justice Moseneke's comments "highlight the difficulty that many within the judiciary appear to have in shedding their historical leanings and political orientation." The ANC Youth League took it as evidence that "Zuma can and will never get a fair trial." 

Unlike Justice Moseneke, Judge Hlophe is the epitome of a judge who is "in consonance" with the ruling party. He behaves like an ANC deployee, he is tainted by shady dealings and he is not afraid to play the race card when he needs to. As an ANC NEC member said last week, Judge Hlophe "was one judge who could at least see that the Zuma trial was a political crusade".

Fortunately, the unanimous response of the Constitutional Court Bench tells us that Judge Hlophe's alleged behaviour is not the norm - at least in the upper echelons of the judiciary. This is an encouraging sign that judicial independence can be maintained, despite political threats. It is heartening too that the Judicial Service Commission has acknowledged the situation's urgency and has moved relatively quickly and decisively to deal with it.

The challenge now is for all stakeholders in this affair, including political parties and legal associations, to use temperate and non-racial language when commenting on the matter. If the debate degenerates into a racial slanging match, the chances of justice being served will decrease dramatically - particularly in the event of a parliamentary impeachment hearing. We must not let that happen.