The Johannesburg High Court has granted an application by Cape Judge President John Hlophe against the judges of the Constitutional Court, the South African Broadcasting Corporation reported on Friday.
It ruled that the Constitutional Court judges indeed violated Hlophe’s rights when they made public statements about his alleged interference in the case against African National Congress leader Jacob Zuma.
The high court found that the Constitutional Court’s lodging of a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) also violated Hlophe’s rights.
A full bench of the Witwatersrand Local Division heard his arguments in August, with five judges presiding.
He applied for an order to have action by the Constitutional Court against him declared unlawful.
Hlophe challenged the Constitutional Court’s announcement, in a media release in June, that he was under investigation for trying to unduly influence judges.
He said the court abused his rights when it made the matter public.
The Constitutional Court’s judges claimed Hlophe tried to improperly influence Judge Bess Nkabinde and Acting Judge Chris Jafta in their decisions on the legality of search-and-seizure raids in Zuma’s corruption case.
JSC spokesperson Marumo Moerane said on Friday he was unable to comment at this stage on what effect the ruling might have on the complaint before the JSC.
”I’m not in a position to comment because I’ve not seen the judgement, I’ve not read it. It really depends on what it says. I don’t want to speculate,” Moerane said.
Hlophe was not answering his cellphone, and his lawyer, Lister Nuku, said he had not been able to contact him either.
Nuku said he was unable to comment on the implications of the judgement because he had not yet seen a copy of it.
Hlophe is still on the long leave he was granted in June this year, when the Constitutional Court controversy arose.
He has spent the past three years fending off various complaints to the JSC, including one of moonlighting for a company without the necessary permission, and another of granting that firm permission to sue a judge in his court for defamation.
A divided JSC ruled last year that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant an impeachment inquiry against him. — Sapa