Judicial watchdog clears Judge Hlophe

NameOfBeast

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
874
Reaction score
0
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/topstories.aspx?ID=BD4A579821

CONTROVERSIAL Cape Judge President John Hlophe will not have to face impeachment proceedings, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) said yesterday, ending months of public speculation about his fate.

Speaking at a media briefing in Cape Town after the JSC meeting, Chief Justice Pius Langa said that although JSC members were divided on whether there was sufficient evidence to justify proceedings that could lead to impeachment, it was generally agreed the proceedings should not be pursued.

“Ultimately, the majority view was that there was not sufficient evidence to proceed with a public inquiry in regard to the main count of receiving payment from Oasis from the [justice] minister,” said Langa.
Despite his claim that the late justice minister Dullah Omar had given him permission to moonlight at Oasis, Hlophe had not brought forward any written proof to support his claim, saying the permission was verbal. This was also criticised by the commission yesterday.

So, the JSC is still buying the `I got permission from Omar' story, despite some small holes in the story:
Hlophe's claim that he had been paid for "expenses" and that he had received permission from the late Dullah Omar was immediately questioned. It was pointed out that Omar had only served as minister of justice until June 1999 well before the launch of the Crescent Retirement Fund or the start of the payments.
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page66309?oid=143119&sn=Detail

And Omar is dead. How convenient.
 
No accountability, very sad and not good for SA.
 
Judge Hlophe betrayed the nation with his greed: Kriegler

http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Article.aspx?id=580945
Although the judge can consider himself lucky to have gained some kind of not-proven verdict, he was certainly not exonerated. Far from it: the man’s reputation is in tatters, his name has become synonymous with scandal in high places, his public utterances and conduct are an ongoing delight to journalists and an embarrassment to his colleagues.

The fall-out of the Hlophe saga is more serious, however. The courts must stand guard over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with no weapon other than their moral authority. It is therefore indispensable that the judiciary enjoys public confidence in its competence, impartiality and integrity. Without public trust and confidence the courts cannot fulfil their constitutional role.

As we all know only too well, numerous other features of the learned Judge President’s tempestuous career at the head of the Cape judiciary have elicited adverse public comment. It is not necessary to refer to them here, save to observe that they reinforce the damning conclusion from the Oasis affair: Judge Hlophe is not a fit and proper person to be a judge. His retention of office constitutes a threat to the dignity and public acceptance of the integrity of the courts. This is indeed tragic, for this highly talented man carried the hopes of all who are passionate about transformation of the judiciary. By his greed he has betrayed us.
 
Resign, Hlophe: Letter from Cape SCs

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A582424
We believe that there cannot be public confidence in the continuation in office now of Judge Hlophe. Even the conduct he has admitted, and the JSC’s characterisation of it, oblige this conclusion.

In all the circumstances, we believe the right thing for Judge Hlophe to do is to resign as judge president and as a judge.

Regarding the JSC, we find it puzzling that despite its (unanimous) characterisation of Judge Hlophe’s responses as “unsatisfactory”, it (by majority vote) decided to desist from requiring him to be examined in relation to these answers.

Public confidence in the JSC as a principled upholder of judicial independence and integrity may not have been served by these events.

Schalk Burger SC, Michael Fitzgerald SC, Jeremy Gauntlett SC, Peter Hodes SC, Rob Petersen SC, Les Rose-Innes SC, Nic Treurnicht SC, Henri Viljoen SC, Renata Williams SC
 
What are the odds of Hlophe resigning, next to nothing and F'all :D
 
Black lawyers hit at judge's Hlophe attack

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20071009104858348C648853
But the Black Lawyers Association has lashed out at Judge Kriegler for his "unsolicited attack" on Judge Hlophe and by implication the Judicial Services Committee, which had cleared him.

It suggested Judge Kriegler should be rebuked or sanctioned for his "unprecedented and improper grandstanding" and "uncollegial attack" on Judge Hlophe.

"In allowing himself to comment at all upon a matter with which the JSC was seized, and of which it has now lawfully disposed, Judge Kriegler placed himself in contempt of the lawfully constituted authority, and evinced disrespect for the members of that august body, not excluding the Chief Justice," said the BLA's judicial committee chairman, Dumisa Ntsebeza SC.
 
Predictable, turn it into a race issue, not one of ethics.
Typical.
 
Predictable, turn it into a race issue, not one of ethics.
Typical.

Exactly, why am I not surprised?


The following year Noseweek revealed, in its April 2006 edition, that regular payments had been made by Oasis to Hlophe between April 2002 and March 2003. The magazine noted that Hlophe had "secretly" gone onto Oasis's payroll "after Oasis had got into a legal dispute with his colleague on the bench, Judge Siraj Desai.... Oasis needed the judge president's consent to sue a judge. Hlophe gave it. No wonder Desai is challenging Oasis to prove that Hlophe's permission was ‘properly sought and given'!"

The allegations were explosive because, in terms of the law [PDF], no judge "may, without the consent of the Minister, accept, hold or perform any other office of profit or receive in respect of any service fees, emoluments or other remuneration apart from his or her [judicial] salary." Initially, Hlophe denied Noseweek's claims outright, telling one newspaper on March 30 "I'm not on a retainer from Oasis or anybody. I am not so stupid to receive a retainer from any party".

On March 31 he told Sapa that "I'm not on any retainer." When asked whether he had ever been on a retainer during his tenure as judge president, he replied: "No." On the same day he told Sue Segar of the Witness, "I have said it before, I am denying this." When Segar told him that she had seen a print-out of the Oasis ledgers showing entries made to a J. Hlope, he responded: "I have not seen anything like that myself. I cannot possibly say anything about something I have not seen."

In a long statement issued on April 1 Hlophe seemed to backtrack on these earlier denials. He now stated that, "It is clear from the books of account of Oasis, that remuneration for out-of-pocket expenses had been received." He suggested that former Justice Minister, Dullah Omar, had known about and approved of his relationship with Oasis. He also accused Desai of leaking the information about the payments to Martin Welz, the editor of Noseweek.

This smacks of corruption, pure and simple. Its amazing he's going to be allowed to continue as a judge, and quite scary.
 
I love that term: "majority view"

I am not saying the view is wrong here in this instance, but once criminals gain the trust of an unsuspecting "majority" then things go haywire quickly. That is the problem with the continent. Things may well be democratically correct, but that doesn't make it logical or geared for a positive outcome at all. In fact if it does it is by pure luck 9 times out of 10.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X