The Editor 
The Cape Times
By email

JUDGE HLOPHE AND THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSION

Freedom Under Law acknowledges the right of Mr Mabunda and the Black Lawyers Association to express their views as publicly and robustly as they see fit. In addition FUL has no wish to be involved in a slanging match with anybody and especially not with an organisation with the long and honourable track record that  the BLA can claim.

But we would suggest that such comment, in order to be useful, should at least be based on  correct facts. First, there is only one complaint in issue in the case pending before the Constitutional Court, namely that Judge Hlophe improperly tried to influence the decision of the Constitutional Court in a case involving Mr Jacob Zuma. The so-called counter-complaint by Judge Hlophe has long since fallen by the wayside.

Secondly, FUL has decidedly not "cast aspersions" on Judge Hlophe. His guilt or otherwise is not in issue in the pending case. It will become in issue if and when the Judicial Service Commission complies with the order of the Supreme Court of Appeal handed down in March this year to investigate the charge against him properly.

But what FUL has said and will continue to say is that it offensive for a person with such a serious charge hanging over his head - a charge levelled by the judges of the highest court in the land - to be seen sitting in judgment on the fitness of candidates for judicial office. It suggests impunity and a lack of transparency, and brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

A judge under indictment on grave criminal and/or professional charges should not be seen to be exercising judicial authority: even less should such a person be clothed with high constitutional authority to select judges.

Johann Kriegler
Chairperson
24 November 2011

Issued by Freedom Under Law, November 25 2011

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter