John Hlophe
News

STATEMENT: JUDGE JOHN HLOPHE

The FW de Klerk Foundation is shocked – but not surprised – by recent comments about South Africa’s judiciary made by Western Cape High Court Judge President, John Hlophe.

Read More »
Supreme Court
News

STATEMENT: CONDUCT OF THE JSC

The FW de Klerk Foundation has taken note of the differing manner in which the Judicial Services Commission of South Africa (JSC) appears to investigate complaints against members of the judiciary.

Read More »
constitutional-court-foter
Latest News

ARTICLE: JUDGES V JUDGES – A NEED FOR FINALITY

constitutional court foterYesterday, the Constitutional Court (the Court) in Nkabinde and Another v Judicial Service Commission and Others, ruled that a provision in the Judicial Service Commission Act meets constitutional muster. In making the ruling, the Court dismissed the application filed by Justices Nkabinde and Jafta to rescind an order previously made by the same Court. The Court further underlined that it is in the interests of justice that the complaint against Western Cape Judge President Hlophe be brought to finality.

The decision is the last hurdle which has been met and all but clears the way for the setting up of a tribunal to conduct disciplinary hearings into Judge Hlophe’s conduct. This, after a complaint of gross misconduct was laid before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against Justice Hlophe by all the then Justices of the Constitutional Court, including the subjects of yesterday’s ruling, Jafta and Nkabinde. They alleged that Justice Hlophe had acted improperly in trying to sway their judgments in matters with a direct bearing on the corruption charges against President Jacob Zuma. Justices Jafta and Nkabinde would have provided crucial evidence of this impropriety but they, instead, challenged the lawfulness of the tribunal that the JSC would have established.  Eight years and numerous legal challenges later, it seems that this ruling will bring the matter to finality.

Read More »
ZUMA CJ

STATEMENT: CFCR WELCOMES MEETING BETWEEN CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE PRESIDENT

ZUMA CJThe Centre for Constitutional Rights (the CFCR) welcomes the recently concluded meeting between the Chief Justice as head of the Judiciary and the President as head of State. The meeting, at the request of the Chief Justice, Heads of Court and senior Judges of all Divisions, aimed to address the unwarranted attacks by some politicians on the Judiciary, but also the government’s apparent disregard for court orders.

Read More »
gavel small
Latest News

STATEMENT: ATTACKS ON JUDICIARY UNACCEPTABLE

gavel smallThe Centre for Constitutional Rights (the CFCR) notes with great concern the increasing attacks on the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of the courts by senior members of the African National Congress (ANC) and its alliance partners.

ANC Secretary General, Gwede Mantashe, accuses the Judiciary of “overreaching” and “contradicting the interest of the state versus judiciary”. He reportedly stated that “there is a drive in sections of the judiciary to create chaos for governance… if it doesn’t happen in the Western Cape High Court, it will happen in the Northern Gauteng – those are the two benches where you always see that the narrative is totally negative and create a contradiction.

Read More »
Mogoeng

STATEMENT: CHIEF JUSTICE MOGOENG’S OATH OF OFFICE AND HIS SPEECH OF 6 JULY ADVOCATING FOR TRANSFORMATION

MogoengThe Centre for Constitutional Rights is deeply concerned about some of the comments made by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng at the Advocates for Transformation’s Annual General Meeting on 6 July.

The Chief Justice has taken an oath “to administer justice to all persons alike, without fear, favour or prejudice in accordance with the Constitution and the law”.  

Read More »
helen suzman

STATEMENT: CFCR WELCOMES AND SUPPORTS HELEN SUZMAN FOUNDATION’S LEGAL ACTION AGAINST JUDICIAL SERVICES COMMISSION

helen suzmanThe Centre for Constitutional Rights (CFCR) welcomes and supports the Helen Suzman Foundation’s reported legal action against the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) aimed at clarifying the procedure and decision-making process relating to the nomination of persons for judicial office. It is high time that the interpretation of sections 174(1), 174(2) and 174(6) of the Constitution be tested in a court. 

Read More »
View Archived Content