Latest news with #JudicialServiceCommission
The Herald
13 hours ago
- General
- The Herald
Hlophe to appeal court judgment regarding designation to the JSC
MK Party deputy president John Hlophe has vowed to appeal the Western Cape High Court judgment that his appointment by the National Assembly as a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) was unconstitutional and invalid. At a media briefing in Durban on Tuesday, Hlophe said he was not going to allow courts to bulldoze him. 'I have spoken to my lawyer, and we are definitely going to appeal that decision,' he said. The court held that Hlophe's appointment to serve as a member of JSC was irrational. Last month, the Constitutional Court dismissed the application by the MK Party and Hlophe to challenge the interim interdict preventing Hlophe from serving on the JSC. Hlophe was interdicted from JSC processes last year after separate court applications were brought by the DA, Corruption Watch and Freedom Under Law. He was impeached for trying to influence Constitutional Court Justices Chris Jafta and Bess Nkabinde to rule in favour of former president Jacob Zuma in the arms deal case in 2008. The court on Monday said that while it did not dispute arguments made by the MK Party that Hlophe was highly qualified; his removal from the bench on charges of gross misconduct was the issue. The court said his designation as a member of the JSC threatened the independence of the judiciary. 'Dr Hlophe's academic ability does not cure this. Through the impeachment of Dr Hlophe, the National Assembly has effectively already determined that his continued involvement in judicial affairs would diminish public trust,' read the judgment. TimesLIVE
IOL News
2 days ago
- Politics
- IOL News
Court rules impeached judge John Hlophe cannot serve on JSC
MK Party Deputy President Dr John Hlophe will not serve in the JSC. Image: Armand Hough / Independent Newspapers The Western Cape High Court has ruled that the impeached former judge, Dr John Hlophe, cannot be part of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), saying his appointment was unconstitutional. In a ruling on Monday, the High Court found that the National Assembly (NA) had failed to properly exercise its discretion in approving his appointment—thereby undermining the integrity of the judiciary. The court held that Parliament's conduct effectively rubber-stamped Hlophe's nomination, disregarding the serious implications for the JSC's credibility and constitutional mandate. The MK Party deputy president was nominated to serve on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) last year but subsequently resigned. 'The judiciary is essential to the maintenance of constitutional democracy. 'It is declared 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. 'Hlophe and MKP are ordered to pay the applicant's costs,' the order stated. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The JSC, a constitutionally established body, is tasked with recommending judicial appointments and holding judges accountable. The court emphasised that this function is essential to upholding judicial independence—an obligation it said was compromised by Hlophe's appointment. Hlophe and the MK Party were ordered to pay legal costs on a punitive scale. The judgment followed legal action brought by Freedom Under Law, Corruption Watch, and the Democratic Alliance (DA) who argued that appointing an impeached judge to the JSC threatened the independence and legitimacy of South Africa's judiciary. In February 2024, Hlophe became the first judge in democratic South Africa to be impeached by Parliament, following a recommendation by the Judicial Service Commission. The impeachment stemmed from a misconduct case dating back to 2008 when Hlophe was accused of attempting to improperly influence Constitutional Court Justices Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta in a matter involving then-President Jacob Zuma. After more than a decade of legal proceedings, the JSC recommended his removal in 2021. Parliament only voted in favour of impeachment in 2024. The DA federal chairperson, Helen Zille, has welcomed the court ruling. IOL Politics
Daily Maverick
3 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Judge's sexual harassment hearing pits the old guard against a brave new world
The prolonged Judicial Conduct Tribunal probe into a complaint of sexual harassment lodged against Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge (64) is drawing to a close. Gender expert Dr Lisa Vetten is expected to give evidence on the nature of the power dynamics in this case on 20 June. The complainant, Andiswa Mengo (41), worked as a judge's secretary in the division. It took three years for the complaint to reach the tribunal. In June 2023, a preliminary Judicial Conduct Committee hearing found a prima facie case of gross judicial misconduct and recommended the appointment of the tribunal. The tribunal's chairperson, retired Judge Bernard Ngoepe, has made no secret of his need to fully understand the new language of texts and emojis and its subtexts of bananas, eggplants, dripping syringes and ripe peaches. Ngoepe has not been shy about asking how this modern technology all works. In so doing, he has also educated many of those watching the hearings livestreamed on several platforms who are lay users and need just as much educating. At first Ngoepe was of the opinion the hearings should not be public because they would tarnish the image of the judiciary, but the opposite is true. He also has to determine whether the relationship could have been consensual, as alleged by Mbenenge, who has admitted to the relationship but denied many of the allegations. The advocacy project Judges Matter has been at the forefront of documenting each step of the process and also set out what Ngoepe's options might be. Judges found guilty of misconduct face a range of potential outcomes, from minor corrective measures to impeachment. This is what happened to former Western Cape judge president John Hlophe, who was impeached in March 2024. The tribunal had ordered 'drunk driving' former judge Nkola Matata, who was also impeached at the same time as Hlophe, to pay a R1.5-million fine. According to Judges Matter, for less serious offences, punishments might include 'an apology, reprimand or corrective training, with the judge potentially paying for these measures'. A gross misconduct finding could lead to impeachment with the Judicial Service Commission recommending removal from office, requiring a two-thirds vote by the National Assembly. Clash of wor(l)ds Mbenenge's team of legal heavyweights, advocates Muzi Sikhakhane and Griffiths Madonsela, are old-style patriarchs who might view the entire matter as 'woke', but they are up against an equally pugnacious team. This includes the evidence leader, advocate Salomé Scheepers, and Mengo's counsel, advocate Nasreen Rajab-Budlender. What has played out at the tribunal since it kicked off in January is a microcosm of the greater clash between the old and the new, including the law and language and 'culture' itself. What has also been highlighted is the kind of professional conduct that is legislated and enforceable in the public workplace in South Africa. Some of the women who have testified and appear to have 'thrown' the male old guard include legal forensic linguist Dr Zakeera Docrat. She gave expert testimony with regard to the context of the WhatsApp messages between Mbenenge and Mengo, and the meaning of a range of emojis. The old boys had no idea whom they were dealing with and seemed startled to learn quite late into Docrat's testimony that she speaks, reads and understands isiXhosa. She had made no attempt to show this off. Then these guys wanted to know her 'route' to this 'legal forensic linguist' qualification. Where did she get this qualification? What is it actually? And so forth. Docrat had nothing to prove and rattled off her illustrious academic career, which includes the goal of ensuring justice is attainable for speakers of all 12 languages in South Africa. What to do? Sikhakhane and Madonsela objected to Vetten's late addition as an expert gender witness, claiming this was irrelevant and that the matter was too far down the line for new arguments. Ngoepe, aware that all eyes are on him and that the new territory here may make many feel out of their depth, allowed Vetten's evidence to be heard. The entire tribunal and the public nature of the hearing has highlighted the issue of sexual harassment of women in the workplace. But was Mbenenge's conduct so gross that it warrants impeachment? Mbenenge, as Judges Matter has noted, 'is highly regarded as a senior lawyer. As judge president, he is credited with transforming the Eastern Cape High Court division through unifying the disparate seats and attracting some of South Africa's finest legal minds to serve as judges of that court'. Mbenenge is the second-most senior judge president and the sixth-most senior judge in judicial leadership in South Africa. This is the first major case of sexual harassment to reach the formal complaints process of the Judicial Service Commission and the first time a judge is being formally investigated by a tribunal for sexual harassment. DM This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper, which is available countrywide for R35.
Mint
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
India's judicial rebirth: Let's fix how we select and remove judges
India's judiciary, a public institution, is working under a secretive collegium system and a complex removal process which doesn't inspire public trust. Scandals like Justice Yashwant Varma's 2025 burnt currency note allegations fuel distrust. A Judicial Service Commission (JSC), inspired by South Africa and Kenya's transparent models, could regulate appointments and removals with oversight by the Rajya Sabha. We propose a bold JSC to end the 'uncle judge syndrome' and also rid India's judiciary of bad judges to deliver justice reliably. Also Read: Call of justice: India should reform its process for the removal of judges India's flawed systems: The current collegium for judge selection, established through the 'Judges Cases' (1981-1998), redefined 'consultation" under the Constitution's Article 124 as 'concurrence," giving judges control over appointments to counter Emergency-era (1975-77) executive overreach. A 2015 Supreme Court ruling struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, which proposed a selection panel that would include the Chief Justice of India (CJI), law minister, judges and eminent persons, preserving judicial primacy. Justice Chelameswar's 2015 dissent highlighted the collegium's opacity: no records, irregular meetings and leaks. Judge removal is nearly impossible under Articles 124(4) and 218, requiring a motion moved by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members, an inquiry and a two-thirds majority in both Houses for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity." Only two judges—V. Ramaswami and Soumitra Sen—have faced such a motion in India so far and both resigned before the process was completed. Also Read: The judiciary cannot turn into a haven for the corrupt Cost of inaction: The collegium's secrecy breeds familiarity, often called the 'uncle judge syndrome.' A 2012 study by George Gadbois found candidates with judicial family ties 37% more likely to be appointed. This lack of diversity alienates litigants, like a rural woman seeking justice for domestic abuse or a Dalit entrepreneur fighting business discrimination. These individuals, often from marginalized communities, face systemic barriers and may feel that judges—mostly urban upper-caste men—are unable to relate to their struggles, leading to doubts over fairness. The 2019 CPIO vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal ruling mandated access to collegium decisions under India's Right to Information, but compliance has been weak. From the 2012 cash-for-bail scandal to recent allegations, it is clear that corruption persists. India's long-drawn judge removal process protects wrongdoers, undermining the rule of law. Also Read: A judiciary that refrains from judicial overreach can better serve the cause of justice Let's consider South Africa's JSC. How does it function? Under Section 178 of its 1996 Constitution, the JSC has 23 members: the chief justice, members of parliament, lawyers, academics and presidential nominees, with public nominations for civil society inputs. It advertises vacancies, shortlists candidates and conducts public interviews, recommending appointees based on merit and diversity (Section 174). By 2022, 45% of judges were South African by ethnic ancestry. Removals start with the Judicial Conduct Committee, which handles minor complaints and issues warnings. Serious cases go to a Judicial Conduct Tribunal, which investigates and recommends removal to the JSC. The JSC's decision is final, subject to oversight by a parliamentary committee. Consider a specific case, that of South African judge, John Hlophe (2008-2024). In 2008, the Constitutional Court accused Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe of trying to influence a case involving former President Jacob Zuma. Civil society groups, including Freedom Under Law, filed complaints with the JSC, demanding action. The JCC initially cleared Hlophe, but a public outcry led to further scrutiny. In 2020, Deputy Judge President Patricia Goliath flagged Hlophe's misconduct, including racist remarks. After a tribunal investigation, the JSC recommended his removal in 2024, approved by a parliamentary committee. Also Read: Complete justice: Article 142 should be invoked only in truly rare cases Accountability lessons: Kenya too has a similar structure and also follows Common Law principles like South Africa and India. Other democracies show how to hold judges accountable without a gridlock. In the US, judges face removal for misconduct, with its Congress and civil society ensuring transparency. Germany's parliament and courts, with public inputs, remove judges who violate fundamental ethical principles. The UK uses parliamentary panels, informed by civil society, to address judicial missteps. Nigeria's judicial council, backed by legislative oversight and public advocacy, flags and removes corrupt judges. Unlike India's complex removal process, these systems empower elected representatives and citizens to act decisively, balancing judicial independence with accountability and offering India a blueprint. India needs a judicial service commission: A JSC modelled on South Africa and Kenya could transform India's system. Led by the CJI, it should include judges, the law minister, academics and civil society representatives to ensure diverse perspectives. The JSC should advertise vacancies, shortlist candidates via public interviews and recommend appointees. Civil society could nominate candidates and offer feedback. For removals, the JSC would investigate complaints (including citizen petitions), refer serious cases to a tribunal and recommend removals to the President, with oversight by the relevant Rajya Sabha parliamentary standing committee to ensure fairness and prevent politicization. This panel should review JSC processes, hold public hearings and report to Parliament, thus ensuring transparency. Critics fear politicization, but transparency and civil society involvement would mitigate this risk. Justice Louis Brandeis' truism, 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant," would apply. A judiciary for all: India's judiciary must reflect its social diversity and earn trust. Adopting South Africa and Kenya's JSC models can reform appointments and removals. The judiciary's black robes must not conceal corruption or elitism. A JSC, with stakeholders like civil society, can end the 'uncle judge syndrome,' let in sunlight and ensure a judiciary that upholds the rule of law for every Indian. The authors are, respectively, vice president of Pune International Centre and secretary general of CUTS International.
News24
13-05-2025
- Politics
- News24
Mbenenge Tribunal rules gender expert can testify – despite Judge President's objections
Retired Judge President Bernard Ngoepe has ruled that gender expert Dr Lisa Vetten can testify before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Tribunal investigating sexual harassment accusations against Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge, despite his objections. Although Mbenenge's advocate, Muzi Sikhakhane, questioned the relevance of Vetten's testimony in determining the truth of High Court secretary Andiswa Mengo's accusations against the Judge President, the tribunal chairperson, Ngoepe, ruled on Tuesday that such relevance could be determined after her evidence. It was the tribunal's view that it was 'better to err on the side of caution' in that respect, he said. The hearing adjourned to allow evidence leader Salome Scheepers and the lawyers representing Mengo and Mbenenge to agree on how the tribunal should proceed.
