John Hlophe stripped of ‘salary for life’, becomes first impeached judge in SA

The National Assembly voted in favour of the removal of Judges John Hlophe and Nkola Motata on Wednesday 21st of February, 2024.

More than 15 years later, the DA’s position that Hlophe lacks the integrity to be a judge, has been affirmed by the National Assembly which has adopted a resolution supporting the Judicial Services Commission’s finding that Hlophe should be removed as a judge.

In a last-minute attempt to prevent the adoption of this resolution, Hlophe unsuccessfully approached the Courts to prevent the National Assembly from exercising its Constitutional duties to hold public figures to account, including judges, who are not above the law.

Hlophe’s case started in 2008 when nine justices of the Constitutional Court (CC) laid a complaint against him, accusing him of attempting to influence Justices Chris Jafta and Bess Nkabinde in a case concerning former President Jacob Zuma. In the 15 years since, there have been numerous litigations on the part of both JP Hlophe as well as the JSC. In April 2021, a tribunal inquiry found Hlophe guilty of gross misconduct, a decision upheld by the JSC (without the parliamentarians) in August 2021.

Hlophe challenged the JSC’s decision in the Johannesburg High Court, but a full bench of three senior judges slapped this down. Hlophe filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) but did not proceed with it, pleading a lack of funds.

While the process was snaking its way through the National Assembly (NA), Hlophe made a last-ditch attempt to stop it. He applied to the Constitutional Court (CC) to declare parliament’s process ‘unconstitutional’ and for parliament to hold a fresh inquiry. Days later, he filed another application in the Western Cape High Court to stop parliament from proceeding, until the Constitutional Court application was resolved.

In the Constitutional Court application, Hlophe argued that Parliament did not have the appropriate procedures or rules in place to guarantee a fair or lawful removal process as per section 177(1)(b) of the Constitution. Further, both the vote and adoption to remove him from office will be unconstitutional, and a gross infringement on the principle of separation of powers and judicial independence. Parliament denied this, arguing that the rules are sufficient.