Judicial Conduct Committee chair to probe allegations against Hlophe

The Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) has recommended that complaints lodged by Western Cape deputy judge president Patricia Goliath against judge president John Hlophe be referred to its chairperson, deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo.

The committee, by a majority of two to one, recommended the inquiry be conducted in terms of section 17 of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Act.

The committee met last month to consider whether complaints involving Hlophe and his deputy should be reported to the Judicial Conduct Tribunal (JCT).

In January, Goliath accused Hlophe of attempting to interfere in the legal challenge to the inter-governmental agreement between SA and Russian nuclear agency Rosatom. She also accused him of physically assaulting another judge, as well as intimidation, victimisation and abuse.

In his counter-complaint, Hlophe charged that Goliath, in the performance of her judicial functions, had made herself guilty of judicial misconduct.

The committee made its recommendation on Tuesday.

Two judges held that on the available evidence and in the absence of Goliath’s response and representations, the committee had to consider whether an inquiry was required in terms of section 17 of the act, which deals with inquiries into serious, non-impeachable complaints by members of the JCC.

In terms of section 17, such an inquiry need not necessarily be a formal one — but it may be, if the chairperson (or member of the committee designated to conduct it) decides that it should be so.

The inquiry is required to be inquisitorial in nature and there is no onus on any person to prove or disprove any allegation of fact.

Upon the conclusion of the inquiry, the chairperson or member designated to conduct the inquiry may dismiss one or both complaints.

The chairperson may also find that one or both complaints had been established and that the respondents had behaved in a manner unbecoming of a judge, and impose remedial steps such as an apology, reprimand, written warning or any form of compensation or counselling.

The chairperson may also recommend to the committee to in turn recommend to the JSC that one or both complaints should be investigated by the JCT.

In a minority judgment, justice Nambitha Dambuza felt both complaints warranted a referral to the JSC and recommended that they be investigated by the JCT.

“Both complaints allege extremely serious misconduct by the judges that, if established, would have had a seriously negative impact — not only on the direct victim thereof, but the wider judiciary,” said Dambuza.

In refusing to refer the complaints to the tribunal, Gauteng deputy judge president Phineas Mojapelo said what stood out between Hlophe and Goliath was a glaring inability to work together in leadership of the division.

Mojapelo said this was due to personal issues being dragged into the workplace and possible different conceptions as to what their respective roles and duties were.

“These admittedly are matters which should not be left unattended. They, however, do not point prima facie to gross misconduct for the impeachment of a judge,” said Mojapelo.