In a landmark development, South Africa’s parliament has taken the decisive step of impeaching a prominent judge, John Hlophe, over allegations of misconduct.
Following a thorough investigation, it was revealed that Hlophe, the chief justice in Western Cape province, attempted to exert influence on justices at the nation’s highest court during a case involving former President Jacob Zuma.
In 2008, he approached two justices seeking their support for Zuma in a corruption-related decision, although Hlophe consistently denied these allegations.
The protracted period between the alleged transgression and the impeachment can be attributed to extensive appeals and investigations. This marks an unprecedented removal of a judge since the inception of the country’s democratic era in 1994.
In a parallel development, a second judge, Nkola Motata, faced impeachment for disorderly conduct and racially charged outbursts stemming from a 2007 drunk-driving incident.
Motata, who has since retired, served as a High Court judge in Gauteng province at the time of the controversial event and, like Hlophe, vehemently denied the accusations.
President Cyril Ramaphosa must now endorse the decision and specify a date for the formal removal of the judges.
Upon removal, the judges will forfeit all benefits, including a substantial monthly salary exceeding 1 million rand ($53,000; £42,000), a car allowance, and comprehensive medical care.
The initial impeachment unfolded on Wednesday evening, with Mr. Hlophe being the first to face this consequence, as Members of Parliament voted with the required two-thirds majority.
The decision garnered support from both the ruling African National Congress (ANC) and the primary opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), along with other smaller political factions.
Despite a last-minute effort by Mr. Hlophe to obstruct his potential removal, a court dismissed the attempt just hours before the impeachment. Subsequently, Mr. Motata also faced impeachment.
An inquiry conducted by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), an oversight body, determined that in 2008, Mr. Hlophe had approached two of the eleven judges of the Constitutional Court, aiming to influence a ruling favoring Mr. Zuma in connection to a matter in his arms-deal corruption case.
It is essential to note that Mr. Zuma has consistently denied the corruption allegations, and there is no indication of his involvement in Mr. Hlophe’s actions.
