'We won't be played by judges here': MK Party's Dr John Hlophe vows to challenge unconstitutional JSC appointment ruling
Dr John Hlophe, Deputy President of the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP), has vowed to challenge the Western Cape High Court's ruling that declared his appointment to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) unconstitutional.
Speaking at the MKP press briefing held at the Coastlands Skye Hotel in Durban on Tuesday, Hlophe issued a defiant warning: 'Asizodlala amajaji la – we won't be played by judges here.'
The Western Cape High Court found that the National Assembly (NA) failed to properly exercise its discretion in approving Hlophe's appointment, effectively undermining the credibility of the JSC.
As previously reported by IOL, the court said Parliament had 'rubber-stamped' the nomination, ignoring the serious implications for the judiciary's constitutional mandate.
It ruled that 'the National Assembly may not designate Dr Mandlakayise John Hlophe to serve on the Judicial Services Commission in terms of section 178(1)(h) of the Constitution.' The judgment also ordered Hlophe and the MK Party to pay the applicants' legal costs on a punitive scale.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Parliament to abide by high court order preventing Hlophe from sitting on JSC
The court found that Parliament had violated the Constitution by designating Hlophe — an impeached judge who had fallen foul of his oath of office — to serve on the JSC. Parliament will abide by a high court order setting aside its decision to designate impeached former Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe as a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said the Western Cape Division of the High Court had ruled on Monday that the decision by Parliament had been 'unconstitutional, invalid and was therefore reviewed and set aside'. The party to which Hlophe belongs, former president Jacob Zuma's uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK), was also in the spotlight this week when it announced that its secretary-general, Floyd Shivambu, had been demoted and would be sent back to Parliament as an ordinary MP. Musical chairs There he will sit in the opposition benches alongside Hlophe, who is the party's deputy president. In the same opposition catchment in the National Assembly will be EFF leader Julius Malema, Shivambu's former comrade whom he betrayed to join MK. Hlophe has announced that he will appeal against the order. MK spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela said the party was 'determined to expose the fundamental injustices embedded in the current Constitution and will therefore appeal this shocking judgment in an effort to educate the public about the urgent need for parliamentary sovereignty blended with indigenous African law based on ubuntu, collective ownership of economic resources and the will of the people where the law can no longer be manipulated to justify hatred for certain targeted individuals.' Interpretive guidance Court applications were brought by the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Under Law and Corruption Watch after the National Assembly on 9 July 2024 designated Hlophe to serve as one of its representatives on the JSC in terms of section 178 of the Constitution. This week, Parliament noted 'the interpretative guidance offered by the court' which offered its concern about 'the rationality of designating a member who was previously found guilty of gross misconduct and removed from judicial office, and who has continued to demonstrate conduct incompatible with Parliament's obligation to protect and ensure the independence and integrity of the judiciary'. Mothapo said as the judgment bore implications for Parliament's internal arrangements, procedures and processes relating to the designation of representatives to the JSC and other constitutional bodies, it would 'take all necessary steps to ensure alignment with the court's findings'. This included instituting 'the appropriate processes to ensure that future designations comply with the constitutional principles outlined in the judgment'. The court ordered Hlophe and MK to pay the costs of the application. Parliament violated Constitution It found that Parliament had violated the Constitution by designating Hlophe — an impeached judge who had fallen foul of his oath of office — to a seat on the JSC. This would have compromised and undermined the integrity and legitimacy of the JSC and any process in which Hlophe might be involved in the appointment of future judges, the full bench set out in a concurring judgment. 'The National Assembly did not consider the relevant fact that Dr Hlophe had been impeached for gross misconduct. Instead, it relied on irrelevant considerations, such as established parliamentary practices and conventions, which cannot override constitutional requirements,' read the order. DM
Daily Maverick
8 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
School's decision to change name from ‘disgraced' DF Malan to DF Akademie ‘undeniably rational'
The Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld a Bellville school's decision to change its name from DF Malan High School to DF Akademie to distance itself from its apartheid past, despite objections from some parents. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed a review application by four parents and found the school governing body (SGB) of DF Malan High School in Bellville, Western Cape, acted within its powers to rename the school in line with its values of inclusivity and academic excellence. This means the Afrikaans-medium school's name can be changed to DF Akademie, as suggested in May 2021. The voting for a new name took place in October 2021. Of the 3,466 votes received, the overwhelming majority, namely 85%, proposed DF Akademie. The litigation stems from Barend Rautenbach, Johan Smit, Francois Malan and Barend de Klerk taking umbrage against the SGB's decision after a consultative process in May 2021, to change the name of the school. In essence, they requested that the SCA review and set aside the decision of Western Cape Division of the High Court Judge Robert Henney, who dismissed the appellants' application to maintain the name DF Malan, the prime minister from 1948 to 195, who is considered to be one of the architects of apartheid. In his ruling, Henney said, 'The glorification of his name by an insistence that a school be named after him in post-apartheid South Africa where young people have to embrace a culture based on the values of our Constitution is an insult not only to them, but to the millions of South Africans who suffered at the hands of the apartheid regime.' The SCA judgment, penned by acting Judge John Smith, found the SGB's consultation process was comprehensive, fair and rational. 'The name of Dr Malan harks back to the apartheid era, an association that is fundamentally at odds with the school's ethos of inclusivity and transformation. The governing body's decision to purge the school of this unfortunate association with a disgraced legacy is thus undeniably rational and in the best interest of the school and all its stakeholders,' he stated. The ruling further stated that, while the school took pride in its academic success culture and inclusive policies, its controversial name had been an albatross around its neck. Stigma of name and call for change The school was established in 1954. Shortly after its establishment, the school obtained the permission of the then prime minister to name the school after him. In 2018, an alumnus wrote to the governing body, describing the name as 'insensitive and inappropriate' and demanded that the school begin a process to change its name. In September 2019, the school received similar letters from a parent of two learners. The pressure on the SGB to reconsider the school's name intensified during June 2020 when a group of alumni calling themselves 'DF Malan Must Fall' joined the fray. Their stated objective was to agitate for a name change and to address the 'institutional racism' at the school. In June 2020, the SGB began a process that would allow it to determine if the school's symbols, including its anthem and name, should be changed, as well as the cost implications thereof. Since the Schools Act does not prescribe a procedure for the changing of a school's name, the governing body was at sea concerning the issue and had to do its best to devise a fair process to enable consultation with stakeholders. All it had to rely on were circulars from the Department of Education and the Federation of Governing Bodies for South African Schools (Fedsas). Significantly, both circulars presumed that the governing body had the authority to change the school's name. A departmental circular, while instructing governing bodies to submit names to the provincial education department to enable it to check whether other schools bore the same name, expressly stated that a governing body's authority to change a school's name was beyond question. The Fedsas circular reminded governing bodies that changing a school's name was a sensitive matter and cautioned that wide consultation with all stakeholders, including parents, teachers, learners and the broader community, had to inform any decisions regarding a school's symbols, including its name, motto or emblem. Varied responses It was then suggested that the governing body create an ad hoc steering committee to oversee the consultation process and advise on potential new names or symbols. On 22 June 2020, the governing body wrote to all parents, students, alumni, and school staff on its database, informing them of its decision to begin a process to reconsider the school's name and symbols. The letter elicited a variety of responses, with some expressing misgivings about a name change, others supporting it and some making suggestions about the process that should be followed. The SGB then appointed an independent facilitator, Dr Jan Frederick Marais, a theologian of the Ecumenical Board of Stellenbosch University's Theology Faculty, and a renowned mediation expert, and thereafter a steering committee. Chairperson of the governing body Andre Roux asserted that although the steering committee members were advised to focus discussions on the school's symbols and identity, they were not instructed to prohibit discussions on the school's name. A draft report was eventually compiled and while everybody agreed with the school's core values as formulated by Dr Marais, three steering committee members disagreed with the decision to change the school's name. They were Veronica van Zyl, Mette Warnich – who also filed affidavits in support of the appeal application – and Gert Visser. On Marais's advice, a new task team was thereafter formed to advise the governing body on the formulation of a consultative process with stakeholders; criteria against which proposed new names could be evaluated; and the financial implications of a name change. The task team decided that invitations should be sent to all persons on the school's database to propose new names. After the invitations to comment were sent in April 2021, 626 of the recipients responded – 301 proposing that the name DF Malan be retained and 325 suggesting new names. However, the SGB decided that only two of the four names submitted by the task team were acceptable, namely Protea Akademie and DF Akademie. In a vote, DF Akademie won 85%. The appellants in the case took issue with several points. They claimed SGBs did not have the authority to change a school's name, that the SGB departed from the procedure it originally shared with the school community, stifled debate and failed to properly consult on the name change. The SCA judgment dismissed the complaints. 'I find that in changing the school's name, the governing body was acting within the ambit of its implied powers in terms of the Schools Act; that the procedure it adopted to consult interested parties was comprehensive, fair and rational; and that the decision to change the school's name was taken with due regard to, and rationally connected to the information before it. The appeal must therefore fail,' it read. DM
Mail & Guardian
12 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
EFF loses fuel levy court challenge
EFF leader Julius Malema. (X) The The party's application, lodged against Finance Minister The EFF argued that it was unlawful because it was not introduced through a Money Bill, as required by section 77 of the Constitution. The party described the court's ruling as 'a betrayal of the poor and the working class' and accused Godongwana's office of sidestepping democratic procedures in the management of public finances. 'Taxation without representation is arbitrary and unconstitutional,' the party said. The ANC-led government of national unity was doing everything in its power 'to protect the interests of those who continue to benefit from the apartheid economy, while subjecting the masses of our people to economic misery'. Godongwana has insisted that he acted within existing legislation. In his He added that it had been frozen since 2021, and the increase was necessary to preserve the real value of the levy in the face of inflation and declining revenue. He warned that halting the increase would result in a R3.5 billion shortfall for the fiscus, necessitating further borrowing, spending cuts or alternative tax increases. 'The fuel levy is not a new tax. It is a regulatory adjustment falling under existing legislation and its increase does not require a Money Bill,' Godongwana argued in the affidavit, adding that freezing the levy any further would compromise the integrity of the budget and limit the state's ability to deliver services. The court's ruling allowed the increase to proceed and, on Wednesday, fuel prices rose accordingly for the month of June. However, a dip in global oil prices and modest strengthening of the rand brought slight relief for motorists. EFF leader 'It is not the EFF that got rejected; it is the people of South Africa who lost. When you increase fuel, you increase everything, transport, food, the cost of living. Our people are already suffering. This is an extra blow to the working class,' he said. The EFF would not abandon the matter, Malema said, indicating that it was considering further legal avenues, as well as a legislative push in parliament to close loopholes that allow the treasury to act unilaterally. EFF treasurer general Omphile Maotwe, who has led the party's engagements on budget matters, reiterated its position that the matter should have come before parliament. 'The levy seeks to recover revenue after the courts invalidated the unlawful VAT increase proposed earlier this year. By using the Customs and Excise Act to bypass section 77 of the Constitution, the minister is undermining the democratic function of parliament and the people's right to participate in fiscal policy decisions,' she said. Maotwe said the EFF would submit proposals to amend the relevant sections of the Customs and Excise Act and the Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act to ensure no future taxation could be implemented without a parliamentary vote. While the EFF's application was dismissed, legal observers say the court did not definitively rule on the constitutional questions raised, which could leave the door open for further challenge. While the government is technically within its rights to use the Customs and Excise Act to amend levies, the broader question of public accountability in tax decisions remains unresolved, constitutional law expert professor Pierre de Vos said. 'There's a grey area here. The Constitution requires that money bills originate in the National Assembly, but there are long-standing statutes like the Customs and Excise Act that give the executive certain powers. Whether those powers are now unconstitutional is a debate we may see return to the courts.' The EFF said it would use all platforms, legal and political, to hold the treasury accountable. 'We will not rest while unelected officials continue to impose taxes behind the back of parliament. The people must have a voice in every cent that is taken from their pockets,' Malema said.
