WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2008-06-23 Time: 13:00:01 Posted By: Jan
By Bonganie Mthembu and Ella Smook
The political fall-out from the Judge Hlophe saga continued during the weekend after the ANC in KwaZulu-Natal criticised the Constitutional Court for the manner in which the charges against the Cape Judge President were being handled.
At its sixth provincial elective conference in Pietermaritzburg during the weekend, which was attended by ANC President Jacob Zuma, ANC delegates took a resolution condemning the way the Constitutional Court has handled the matter.
Judge John Hlophe has taken long leave after the Constitutional Court lodged a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) that the Cape Judge President had attempted to improperly influence pending judgements relating to Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thint.
Earlier this month the Constitutional Court alleged that Judge Hlophe had improperly approached two of its judges. And last week, details of the allegations – contained in a 21-page document – were leaked to the media.
But the ANC conference resolved that it was wrong for Constitutional Court to have initially made public the complaint against Judge Hlophe without having first allowed the JSC to investigate properly.
However, in a response to complaints by Judge Hlophe about the manner in which the Constitutional Court had handled the issue, Chief Justice Pius Langa last week said “it was considered imperative and appropriate that this be publicly disclosed” because of the “circumstances where the independence of the Constitutional Court had been threatened and the integrity of the administration of justice in South Africa generally”.
“It was especially important that the litigants and the general public were informed of the attempt and that the Constitutional Court had not succumbed to it,” Judge Langa said.
Reading the conference resolutions on Sunday, provincial executive committee member Cyril Xaba said that the publication of the complaint by the Constitutional Court without first giving the JSC the opportunity to decide whether there should be a public inquiry was uncalled for.
“The conference resolves to condemn the public parading of the complaint by the Constitutional Court prior to the charges being taken to the JSC,” he said.
The conference resolved that all complaints pertaining to the judiciary should be respected and that they should be dealt with within the parameters of the law, and that the media should not be used to conduct a public trial.
But Judge Langa pointed out in the statement that “the circumstances giving rise to the complaint against Hlophe JP were unprecedented and exceptional. There are no pre-ordained procedural requirements in such circumstances”.
Judge Hlophe allegedly indicated to a Constitutional Court judge that he had “a mandate” to approach the court in the Zuma/Thint cases. The ANC has denied any connection between Zuma and Judge Hlophe.
Should the JSC investigation into the allegations find that Judge Hlophe was guilty of gross misconduct or dishonest behaviour that threatened the independence of the courts, the body would have to refer the issue to Parliament for impeachment proceedings.
The matter would then rest in the votes of Parliament, which will need to reach the two-thirds majority required to pass an impeachment resolution before the judge could be removed from office.
Constitutional experts have warned that there is no possibility of compelling Parliament to adopt the necessary resolution, and that a credibility crisis in the judicial system could follow if the JSC refers the matter for impeachment but Parliament fails to garner a two-thirds majority in support of one.