Speaker faces axe over R2.3m ‘gift bags’
March 6, 2024
Confronting the Silent Epidemic of Kidney Disease
March 7, 2024
In a significant move, President Cyril Ramaphosa has officially removed Western
Cape High Court Judge President John Hlophe from office with immediate effect. This
decision follows a lengthy process involving the Judicial Service Commission (JSC)
finding Hlophe guilty of gross misconduct and the National Assembly voting for his
impeachment.
The letter from Justice Minister Ronald Lamola stated, “President Ramaphosa has
decided, in terms of section 177(2) of the Constitution, to remove you from office with
immediate effect.” This action stems from allegations dating back to 2008, accusing
Hlophe of attempting to improperly influence Constitutional Court Justices.
Despite the allegations, Hlophe has maintained his innocence throughout the
proceedings. His lawyer, Barnabas Xulu, expressed concern, stating, “We have noted
the President’s decision and we must indicate that we are awaiting the Constitutional
Court to pronounce and maybe help shed some light on some of our concerns.”
At the heart of Hlophe’s stance lies a deeper issue – his belief in the existence of
racism within the legal profession. In 2004, he authored a report on racism based on
his experiences, explaining, “One of the things that I raised in my report was skewed
briefing patterns. We live in the country where the economy is still in the hands of the
very few South Africans, and its largely white South Africans and that is the fact.”
Hlophe’s removal has reignited debates around transformation and representation
within the legal system. “Some judges attempted to persuade me to withdraw the
racism report, but, he said, I refused to withdraw it because I was convinced it was
valid,” he asserted, highlighting the resistance he faced in addressing these
concerns.
As the dust settles on this high-profile case, the legal fraternity grapples with the
implications of Hlophe’s ouster and the broader issues he raised about racism within
the profession. While opinions may differ, his stance has undoubtedly reignited
crucial conversations about inclusivity and equal opportunities within the legal realm.