Prof Pierre De Vos is a disgrace to the scholarly/professorship fraternity
The Justice for Hlophe Alliance is disappointed after reading the ill informed views and preconceived ideas which were expressed by the self appointed constitutional expert, one Prof Pierre de Vos. Although this was to be expected from the White supremacist that he (de Vos) is who always sees things in Black and White, we nevertheless still had hopes that he would one day see things in clear colour and realise that life is not always about whether one is Black or White. We expected better from someone of his stature, especially one who is supposed to be a good example to the up and coming, particularly the young University kids who look up to him for guidance, alike in both the White and Black communities. The misguided criticism by Prof de Vos (see here) which is directed at the JFH Alliance stems from its nomination of judge president Hlophe "for the position of Chief Justice" he says. It is common knowledge that a Chief Justice is only appointed by the state president as provided for in Section 174 (3) of the Constitution of 1996 which he correctly quoted. That fact is not in dispute, certainly not by the Justice for Hlophe Alliance at any rate; hence in our press statement it is precisely for this reason that we submitted ourselves to the provisions of the constitution. We further confirmed that we respect the constitutional processes that are followed in appointing a Chief Justice.
We reiterate that as the JFH Alliance we are neither above the constitution nor the laws governing this country. Having said that, we maintain that it is still within our rights to nominate justice Hlophe to/for any position we deem him fit to occupy. This includes lobbying for his consideration by the state president who has a prerogative to appoint the Chief Justice outside of the recommended candidates. In nominating justice Hlophe, in the first instance it is for the position of constitutional court judge and this runs concurrently with the nomination for his recommendation by the JSC for the Chief Justice position but failing that a direct route as per subsections (3). For the record, there is no constitutional provision which stipulates that the state president can't be lobbied publicly or that as the JFH Alliance we can't put up a name for the JSC to recommend or for the state president's consideration for the nominee to be appointed for this ultimate position of Chief Justice. Prof de Vos conveniently left out this part about "after all considerations have been done by the relevant authority". As the Justice for Hlophe Alliance we chose to play open cards rather than go behind closed doors or lobby behind the scenes. This route removes malice from the whole process and it removes any doubts about our real intentions in undertaking this action. The state president as de Vos correctly pointed out has neither to consult the JSC nor the opposition for that matter, in appointing the Chief Justice.
It therefore makes it a courtesy if ever the state president does consult any of these parties for their input. In his diatribe however de Vos lambasted the JFH Alliance for its "unprecedented" action and principled stance. He likened our well thought out and researched nomination to his laughable analogy were he to nominate unsaved people, two of whom are deceased (one a stalwart in politics and the other a king of pop in the entertainment industry) for the position of the Pope. How exactly can de Vos ever nominate a deceased person for the position of being a Pope, we wonder? As the JFH Alliance we take exception and find Prof de Vos' remarks childish. The professor's innuendo point only in one direction and that is that he has a waupt sense of humour and at worst is an airhead. In his article, Prof Pierre de Vos confirmed what we have always known about him and that is that he has an IQ the size of a child. Prof de De Vos may be a professor but professorship, in his case as we have learnt, is not necessarily a measure of intelligence. The Justice for Hlophe Alliance's analysis is not at all an ad hominem attack on the professor but it is a brutally honest assessment in sizing up his state of mind including his characteristic traits using the Johari window. Prof de Vos unfortunately failed the test a long time ago on whether he can be objective on matters relating to or stuff being said about justice Hlophe. We suspect that he (de Vos) hates judge president Hlophe for his principled as well as pro transformation stance and he feels that were he (justice Hlophe) to be successful, this might take away opportunities and/or jeorpadise future consideration of aspirant White folks on the bench.
Prof de Vos is wrong about justice Hlophe though and it must be put on record that justice Hlophe does not desire to transform the judiciary because of an ulterior motive or to deny any race (be it White, Coloured or Indian folks) opportunities on the bench.
That assumption by Prof de Vos couldn't be further from the truth and at worst it is a sorry excuse for trying to discredit the judge. The fact of the matter is that it is a constitutional imperative that our judiciary must be transformed such that it is representative of the demographics of this country. That is something that neither Prof de Vos nor people of his ilk can change because such continued imbalances in the judiciary fly against the spirit of the constitution.