Interesting times for SA’s judiciary

“Although procedures followed by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng and the Judicial Service Commission are rightly being questioned, they are not unprocedural,” says constitutional expert Lawson Naidoo of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution.

Mogoeng requested Zuma to provide suggestions of what penalty he should face if found guilty of defying an order by the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) that he testify at the Zondo Commission.

This follows an application by the Zondo Commission that Zuma be imprisoned for not obeying the ConCourt’s order to testify before the commission.

Zuma failed to testify in February in line with a summons from the commission. He also snubbed the Zondo Commission’s contempt application and refused to file court papers detailing why he should not be held in contempt.

Mogoeng gave Zuma until 14 April to file an affidavit that provides the court with details of appropriate sanctions should he be found guilty of contempt and, if committal is deemed appropriate, the nature and the magnitude of the sentence that should be imposed.

In the other far-reaching case, a Judicial Conduct Tribunal report released on April 10 unanimously found that Hlophe ‘improperly attempted to influence’ two ConCourt judges in 2008, to sway a case pending against Zuma. He was found guilty of ‘gross misconduct’.

The tribunal’s report – which recommends that Hlophe be impeached – has now been submitted to the chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission for consideration.

While Hlophe is still serving as judge president of the Western Cape, despite the damning findings of the tribunal, which took over 10 years to complete its investigation, Naidoo explains that due process must be followed.

He discusses this and other issues involving the Zuma and Hlophe matters in an interview with Izak du Plessis.