Parliament voted in favour of the impeachment of Judge John Hlophe, marking a landmark shift in South Africa’s judicial history.
Parliament votes to impeach Judge John Hlophe
The Western Cape Judge President was found guilty of gross misconduct by a Judicial Conduct Tribunal.
The heart of the controversy dates back to 2008 when Hlophe was accused of trying to influence two Constitutional Court judges in the Arms Deal case involving former President Jacob Zuma and French arms manufacturer, Thales.
The tribunal determined that Hlophe’s actions threatened the independence, impartiality, and dignity of the Constitutional Court, seriously undermining public confidence in the judicial system.
In Parliament, on Wednesday, the vote to impeach Judge Hlophe resulted as follows:
- 305 votes in favour; versus
- 27 votes against
What happens next?
Following the parliament’s decision, the next steps involve formal removal procedures, which are now in the hands of President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The process involves several key steps:
- Judicial Conduct Tribunal: A tribunal investigates allegations of incapacity, gross incompetence, or gross misconduct by a judge. In Hlophe’s case, the tribunal found him guilty of gross misconduct.
- Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Review: The findings of the tribunal are then reviewed by the JSC, which makes a recommendation on whether or not the judge should be removed from office.
- Parliamentary Vote: If the JSC recommends removal, the matter is forwarded to the National Assembly. A resolution to remove a judge must be adopted by at least two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly.
- Presidential Action: Following the adoption of a resolution by the National Assembly, the President formally removes the judge from office.
Judge Hlophe’s impeachment sets a precedent for addressing misconduct within the highest levels of the judiciary.
EFF reacts to Judge John Hlophe impeachment
The EFF has vehemently condemned the impeachment of Judge John Hlophe, labelling it as politically motivated and an attack on judicial independence.
They argue that the proceedings against Hlophe by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and the Judicial Conduct Tribunal (JCT) were procedurally unfair and unlawful.
“Furthermore, the National Assembly declined to delve deeper into the JSC’s findings, merely accepting them at face value,” the party’s statement read.
Highlighting Hlophe’s contributions to justice and legal scholarship, the EFF pointed to his significant rulings in landmark cases, emphasising his journey from humble beginnings to a prominent legal figure in South Africa.
“He remains one of the most educated judges and legal scholars we have seen, who has been extensively published, written the most judgements, and significantly influenced case law in South Africa,” the EFF added.
Despite achieving significant success and contributing to landmark legal rulings, Hlophe’s career has been overshadowed by controversies, culminating in the recent impeachment vote.