Umkhonto weSizwe Party parliamentary leader Dr John Hlophe has described the DA’s application to have him removed as a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) as baseless and with an aim to target a political opponent.
The DA, Freedom Under Law (RF), and Corruption Watch have each filed urgent applications in which they seek to challenge the National Assembly’s decision to appoint Hlophe as a member of the JSC. The case is expected to be heard before the Western Cape High Court on Thursday.
The DA wants an order preventing Hlophe from participating in the processes of the JSC pending the finalisation of their review of the National Assembly’s decision to appoint him.
In his court papers, Hlophe argues that there is no allegation that he intends to cause any constitutional harm exercising his duties as a member of the National Assembly serving on the JSC.
“It is disingenuous to suggest that Dr Hlophe’s involvement in the JSC will undermine judicial independence. There is no allegation or evidence at all that his involvement in the JSC in the past has undermined judicial independence or weakened the public’s confidence in his ability to perform his duties. In fact, the evidence is that his involvement in the JSC strengthened judicial independence,” court papers stated.
“To the extent that the DA and CW seek to rely on the fact that Dr Hlophe was removed from office, in the absence of an allegation that the law disqualifies him from occupying any private or public office, as a consequence of that removal, no case for interdictory relief is possible. The interdictory relief sought by the DA and CW cannot stand because its premise is false and the legal premise entirely incompetent.
“The claim of public harm if Dr Hlophe exercises his constitutional duties in the JSC is similarly hollow and a false claim. Its real claim is not public interest but political interests. The JSC has sufficient prophylactic measures and rules in place governing recusals, conflict of interests to alleviate any imaginary harm claimed by these applicants.”
But the DA maintains that a former judge, removed from office for misconduct, cannot sit on a body that appoints judges.
If the public does not have confidence in the administration of justice, then the judicial system “cannot command the respect and acceptance that are essential to its effective operation”, it argues.
Cape Times