The long-awaited judicial conduct tribunal into a gross misconduct complaint against Western Cape judge president John Hlophe began on Monday with an expert witness testifying on the meaning of “sesithembele kinina”.
The now infamous words in isiZulu were uttered by Hlophe — as “a parting shot” he said — at a meeting with Constitutional Court justice Chris Jafta in 2008. They are a crucial part of the evidence in a complaint, now 12 years old, laid by all the then justices of the Constitutional Court.
The justices complained that Hlophe had sought to influence the outcome of a judgment then pending at the highest court linked to corruption charges against former president Jacob Zuma. He was then the president of the ANC and at the time it was widely believed that a judgment in Zuma’s favour would clear the path for him to become president of the country.
Jafta has previously testified that he believed that, implicit in the words, was a hope expressed by Hlophe that the highest court would find in favour of Zuma. But Hlophe had said that all he meant was that the legal issues in the case were important ones and that it was hoped the highest court would clarify them once and for all.
Expert witness Prof Langalibalele Mathenjwa said the words could mean variously “We put our confidence in you”, “We have faith in you”, “We put our trust in you”, “We trust in you”, “We rely upon [or on] you”, or “We are pinning our hope on you”.
But after reading the transcripts of the earlier hearings and affidavits by witnesses who had previously testified, and when looked at in context, he had concluded that Hlophe and Jafta had a common understanding of the words.
“I am convinced that I have delivered on my mandate to prove that ‘sesithembele kinina’ was only purported for the trust, confidence, faith, reliance and hope that judge president Hlophe had and not the other way,” he said.
“Informed by all the information furnished to me, there is absolutely no evidence that indicates the fact that the phrase ‘sesithembele kinina’ was ever intended to influence justice Jafta,” said Mathenjwa in his expert report.
But Gilbert Marcus SC, counsel for all the Constitutional Court justices except Jafta and Bess Nkabinde (the two whom Hlophe was alleged to have approached), asked Mathenjwa whether he had interviewed Jafta about how Jafta had understood the words.
Mathenjwa had not, he said. Having not interviewed him, how could Mathenjwa refute Jafta’s own words about how he had understood the conversation, asked Marcus. Mathenjwa responded that he could not refute it, but said his own understanding was based on the context provided by the transcripts and affidavits.
Evidence leader Ivy Thenga reminded Mathenjwa that his job as an expert was to assist the panel and not to take the side of the person that called him to testify. “Now I want to show you that you already seem to have taken sides,” she said.
She said Mathenjwa had concluded that the two judges, Hlophe and Jafta, did not differ on their understanding of the phrase. But Jafta had said that Hlophe had said that Zuma was being persecuted, just like he, Hlophe, was. And he had also said that the Supreme Court of Appeal had got it wrong. In that context, Jafta had felt that Hlophe had been hoping for a decision that would favour Zuma, she said. She asked whether Mathenjwa stood by his view.
Mathenjwa said he did as Jafta had responded to Hlophe that the case would be decided properly — consistent with his understanding. It was only after the meeting with the other justices, that the words changed meaning, said Mathenjwa.
After Mathenjwa’s evidence, the tribunal was adjourned for the day. On Tuesday, it was expected that cross-examination of Jafta would begin.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.