Complaint Laid Against Hlophe for Interfering in Zuma Appeal |
Constitutional Court
30 May 2008
Statement issued by Constitutional Court Judges
Statement by the Judges of the Constitutional Court
1.) A complaint that the Judge President of the Cape High Court, Judge John
Hlophe, has approached some of the judges of the Constitutional Court in an
improper attempt to influence this Court's pending judgment in one or more cases
has been referred by the judges of this Court to the Judicial Service
Commission, as the constitutionally appointed body to deal with complaints of
judicial misconduct.
2.) The complaint relates to the matters of Thint (Pty)
Ltd v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (CCT 89/07), JG
Zuma and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (CCT
91/07), Thint Holdings (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd and Another v National
Director of Public Prosecutions (CCT 90/07) and JG Zuma v National
Director of Public Prosecutions (CCT 92/07). Argument in these
matters was heard in March 2008. Judgment was reserved in all four matters. The
Court has not yet handed down judgment.
3.) We stress that there is no suggestion that any of the litigants in the cases
referred to in paragraph 1 was aware of or instigated this action.
4.) The judges of this Court view conduct of this nature in a very serious
light.
5.) South Africa is a democratic state, founded on certain values. These include
constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. This is stated in section 1 of our
Constitution. The judicial system is an indispensible component of our
constitutional democracy.
6.) In terms of section 165 of the Constitution the courts are independent and
subject only to the Constitution and the law, which they must apply impartially
and without fear, favour or prejudice. No person or organ of state may interfere
with the functioning of the courts. Organs of state must assist and protect the
courts to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and
effectiveness of the Courts.
7.) Each judge or acting judge is required by item 6 of schedule 2 of the
Constitution, on the assumption of office, to swear an oath or solemnly affirm
that she or he will uphold and protect the Constitution and will administer
justice to all persons alike without fear, favour or prejudice, in accordance
with the Constitution and the law. Other judicial officers or acting judicial
officers must swear or affirm in terms of national legislation.
8.) Any attempt to influence this or any other Court outside proper court
proceedings therefore not only violates the specific provisions of the
Constitution regarding the role and function of courts, but also threatens the
administration of justice in our country and indeed the democratic nature of the
state. Public confidence in the integrity of the courts is of crucial importance
for our constitutional democracy and may not be jeopardised.
9.) This Court - and indeed all courts in our country - will not yield to or
tolerate unconstitutional, illegal and inappropriate attempts to undermine their
independence or impartiality. Judges and other judicial officers will continue -
to the very best of their ability - to adjudicate all matters before them in
accordance with the oath or solemn affirmation they took, guided only by the
Constitution and the law.
Statement issued by the
Constitutional
Court May 30 2008.
With acknowledgements to the Constitutional Court.