The Judicial Service Commission should launch an investigation to
establish whether Judge Chris Nicholson is fit to hold office, United Democratic
Movement leader Bantu Holomisa *1 said on
Wednesday.
In a letter to Chief Justice Pius Langa, Holomisa said recent comments by the
Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) suggesting that Nicholson's conduct in the matter
involving ANC President Jacob Zuma and the National Prosecuting Authority,
warranted an investigation.
"We call upon the Judicial Service Commission to investigate the instances
identified by the SCA where Justice Nicholson contravened judicial procedure.
"We further request that the JSC makes a finding on whether Justice Nicholson is
fit to hold office under the circumstances," Holomisa said.
The UDM president's letter follows the SCA judgment on Monday vindicating the
NPA's position that it was not obliged to invite representations from Zuma
before charging him.
The SCA's judgment, which overruled the controversial Pietermaritzburg High
Court decision by Nicholson in September that let Zuma off the hook, castigated
the learned judge for turning a simple criminal
case *2 into a political matter.
Related Articles
With acknowledgements to
Sapa and Cape Argus.
*1 One again the General
leads from the front.
Hopefully not with his chin, or at least not with a glass chin.
*2 This was certainly no criminal case. It was a civil case
about a criminal mater.
And it wasn't that simple, despite that the SCA judges say "Instead of having a
short and simple case". But I really think that they mean that the case would
have more simple because it would only had been around one matter.
That matter was not that simple.
On the pure reading of the words of the relevant statutes Nicholson J may have
been right that a recharged accused has a right to representation.
But where he cocked it up (and cocked it up very badly) is that he failed to
consider the probable intention of the legislature, the incogency of the
argument concerning directors and national directors and that in any case a
proper interpretation of all the relevant sections of both the Constitution and
the NPA Act actually determine against his conclusion.
But it is clear that the NPA Act is not very well written, at least in this
respect.
If one looks at the brighter side of life, all these many millions of Rands of
taxpayers' money that Zuma and the NPA are spending on this rude pantomime are
assisting somewhat in proper interpretation of some aspects of our Constitution
and our statutes.
But I think that Zuma has spent about R15 million and the NPA a substantial
fraction of that (some of it claimed from Zuma who claims it from the exchequer
who replenishes it from the taxpayers).
So it is a very expensive way of going about things.