Oasis Crescent Property Fund sues Judge Desai for alleged defamation. It comes to light that Judge Hlophe had been receiving regular monthly payments from Oasis at the time that he authorised the defamation action. Judge Hlophe initially denies receiving the payments before changing tack and insisting that they were reimbursements for 'travelling expenses'. Either way, the payments fell foul of Judge Hlophe's statutory and ethical duties not to receive such payments without the prior approval of the Minister of Justice.
Judge Hlophe submits a report on alleged racist practices within the Western Cape legal community, directly to the Minister, and without notice to those named in the report. The report finds its way into the media.
Constitutional Court Justices Nkabinde and Jafta file a complaint with the JSC against Judge Hlophe. The complaint alleges that Judge Hlophe had attempted to interfere improperly with the resolution of an appeal to that court by Mr President Jacob Zuma and Thint Pty Ltd. Judge Hlophe had allegedly done so by meeting the two justices (at his own request) and discussing various aspects of the case with each of them, during which he sought to influence them in favour of Mr President Zuma. Judge Hlophe files a countercomplaint alleging that his rights to dignity, privacy, equality, procedural fairness and access to courts have been infringed and that the complaint was politically motivated and aimed at removing him from office at all costs.
The JSC rules that there is a prima facie case and begins its investigation, referring the matter to oral evidence. Judge Hlophe brings an urgent application in which he seeks to interdict the proceedings before the JSC. The High Court dismissed the application, and Judge Hlophe appeals to the SCA.
JSC hearings postponed multiple times to allow Judge Hlophe to recuperate from ill health, and to afford his newly appointed counsel time to prepare. On 29 March 2009, the SCA dismisses Judge Hlophe's appeal.
The JSC refuses Judge Hlophe's request for a further postponement and commences proceedings in his absence. Proceedings are adjourned to allow the parties to make written representations. Judge Hlophe launches proceedings in the High Court to declare the proceedings unlawful. The High Court orders that proceedings begin de novo.
The JSC reconvenes and conducts interviews behind closed doors. The JSC elects not to subject Judge Hlophe to cross examination. The Mail and Guardian applies to the High Court to set aside the JSC's decision to hold interviews behind closed doors. The Court orders that the JSC's hearings must be open to representatives of the media.
The JSC decides that the complaint does not disclose prima facie evidence of gross judicial misconduct so as to warrant a full inquiry. Freedom Under Law applies to the High Court to have the JSC's decision to hold a preliminary enquiry, and the subsequent decision to dismiss the complaints set aside.
In addition, Western Cape Premier Helen Zille challenged the JSC’s decision in the Western Cape High Court on the basis that the JSC was not properly constituted when it arrived at the decision.
The High Court holds that Freedom Under Law has standing to bring the application, but that it is not entitled to the relief it seeks. FUL appeals the decision to the SCA.
In addition, the Western Cape High Court upholds Premier Zille's application and sets the JSC's August 2009 decision aside. The JSC takes the decision on appeal to the SCA.
The SCA dismisses the JSC's appeal against the Western Cape High Court's decision. In addition, the SCA upholds FUL's appeal against the Johannesburg High Court's decision, finding that procedure adopted by the JSC in 2009 was inappropriate for a final decision on the matters. Both SCA judgments are scathing of the manner in which the JSC has conducted itself throughout proceedings
Judge Hlophe applies for leave to appeal against both decisions to the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court dismisses Judge Hlophe’s application for leave to appeal. The Court refers the complaint back to the JSC.
The JSC referrers the complaint to the Judicial Complaint Committee (JCC), chaired by Judge Musi (Judge President of the Free State High Court).
The JCC recommends to the JSC that a Judicial Conduct Tribunal (JCT) be established to investigate the complaint.
The JCT begins hearing the Hlophe matter.
On 1 October 2013, Justices Jafta and Nkabinde challenge the jurisdiction of the JCT to hear the matter, essentially on the grounds that the complaint, lodged in 2008, should have been adjudicated in terms of the Rules existing at that time (rather than in terms of the Rules as they had been amended in the interim). The JCT rejects the Judges’ contentions. Dissatisfied, Justices Nkabinde and Jafta applied to the South Gauteng High Court, for an order setting aside the JSC’s decisions and declaring section 24(1) of the JSC Act to be unconstitutional.
The South Gauteng High Court dismisses the Justices’ application. The Court refuses the Justices leave to appeal its decision. Leave to appeal is, however, granted by the SCA for reasons of finality and the importance of the case for the administration of justice.
The SCA dismisses the Justices’ appeal in a scathing manner. Throughout the judgment, the Court emphasizes its dismay with the fact that the matter has remained unresolved since 2008. Notwithstanding the tone of the SCA’s judgment, the Justices apply for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court dismisses the application for leave to appeal. Somewhat incomprehensibly, the Justices petition the Court to rescind its judgment.
The Constitutional Court dismisses the application for recission. In its judgment, the Court takes the opportunity to emphasize that it is in the interests of justice that the matter of the complaint against Judge President Hlophe be dealt with and concluded without further delay.
The JCT is scheduled to reconvene on 2 July 2018. However, the matter is postponed sine die when one of the members of the panel, Judge Musi, recuses himself after Judge Hlophe applied for his recusal alleging that he had made disparaging remarks about Judge Hlophe at a social gathering in 2017 (an allegation which Judge Musi denies).
Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng appoints a new member to the panel to replace Judge Musi. However, further delays occasioned by a dispute between Judge Hlophe and the State Attorney in respect of responsibility for settling his legal fees, and the unavailability of Judge Hlophe’s lead counsel, Griffiths QC, mean that the matter does not proceed for some time.
Judge Goliath, Deputy Judge President of the WCHC, files a complaint against Judge Hlophe and his wife, Judge Salie-Hlophe. In it, Judge Goliath alleges that Judge Hlophe had assaulted the WCHC’s Judge Parker; that he had used abusive language in his interactions with her; and that he had unlawfully used his power to divert duties away from her as Deputy Judge President. Judge Hlophe, in response, filed a complaint against Judge Goliath alleging disclosure of confidential information relating to active matters; gross incompetence; acts of racism; and leaking her complaint to the media. The matter is referred by the Deputy Chief Justice to a three-person panel of the JCC.
The complaint against Judge Hlophe as well as Judge Hlophe’s complaint against Judge Goliath are referred to an inquiry in terms of section 17(2) of the JSC Act. The Chief Justice, then, in terms of section 17(4)(c) of the JSC Act, recommends that the JCC consider recommending to the JSC that a JCT be established to investigate Judge Goliath DJP’s complaints against Judge Hlophe. In the same decision, Judge Hlophe’s complaints levelled at Judge Goliath are dismissed.
The 2008 matter is heard by the JCT (more than twelve years after the complaint was lodged with the JSC).
Judge Hlophe appeals to the JCC’s Appeal Committee against the Chief Justice’s findings and recommendations.
The JCT unanimously decides that Judge Hlophe is guilty of gross misconduct as envisaged in section 177 of the Constitution.
The JSC announces that, by a majority of eight to four, it has endorsed the findings of the JCT and has referred the matter to parliament for the National Assembly to commence impeachment proceedings. Judge Hlophe institutes proceedings in the High Court to set aside the JSC’s decision. His counsel is vocal about the JSC’s “sloppy handling” of the matter throughout the lengthy disciplinary process.
The High Court dismisses Judge Hlophe’s application. Leave to appeal to the SCA is nevertheless granted.
Judge Hlophe applies to the South Gauteng High Court to set aside the JSC’s decision to recommend his suspension. Freedom Under Law is cited as the 11th Respondent in the application.
Judge Hlophe applies to the South Gauteng High Court to set aside the JSC’s decision to recommend his suspension. Freedom Under Law is cited as the 11th Respondent in the application.
The JCC Appeal Committee recommends referring both Judge Goliath’s complaint, and Judge Hlophe’s counter-complaint, to a Tribunal for investigation.
Freedom Under Law releases its report on the performance of the JSC between 2009 and 2022. The report highlights the JSC’s abject failure in expeditiously resolving the Hlophe matter (as required of it by the JSC Act).
Freedom Under Law releases its report on the performance of the JSC between 2009 and 2022. The report highlights the JSC’s abject failure in expeditiously resolving the Hlophe matter (as required of it by the JSC Act).
President Cyril Ramaphosa suspends Judge Hlophe following the recommendation by the JSC in July 2022.
Judge Hlophe’s appeal to the SCA lapses as a result of his failure to timeously file the record. In addition, Judge Hlophe applies to the High Court in an attempt to force the state to foot the bill for any legal fees incurred by him in relation to his suspension, removal and/or disciplinary action taken against him by the JSC. Once again, Freedom Under Law is cited as a respondent in the application.
Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Development announces that Judge Hlophe has until November to place extenuating circumstances before the committee, as it considers his potential impeachment.
Parliament’s portfolio committee on justice and correctional services resolves to recommend to the National Assembly that Judge Hlophe be removed from office.
The JSC accepts the JCC’s recommendation to refer Judge Goliath’s complaint against Judge Hlophe to a Tribunal for investigation. The JSC further recommended that Judge Hlophe be suspended pending the finalization of the Tribunal’s investigation. The JSC rejects the JCC’s recommendation to refer Judge Hlophe’s counter-complaint against Judge Goliath to a Tribunal.
Judge Hlophe files an application for direct access to the Constitutional Court in which he seeks an order declaring parliament’s process ‘unconstitutional’ and requiring parliament to hold a fresh inquiry into his conduct. Freedom Under Law seeks leave to intervene in the matter.
Following sustained pressure from Freedom Under Law, the National Assembly announces that it will vote on Judge Hlophe’s removal from office on 21 February 2024. On the morning of the vote, Judge Hlophe brings an urgent application in the Western Cape High Court to interdict the National Assembly from considering his removal. The application is struck from the roll. Later that afternoon, the National Assembly votes in favour of removing Judge Hlophe from office.
President Ramaphosa removes Judge Hlophe from office formally.
