There's no rush to hold impeachment vote against Judge Hlophe, says Parly Speaker
Parliament’s legal team has told the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday that Hlophe has had 16 years to have his views heard in this gross misconduct matter.
Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe. Picture: Werner Beukes/SAPA.
CAPE TOWN - Speaker of the National Assembly (NA) Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula says there’s been no rush to hold an impeachment vote against two high court judges - including one of the country’s longest-serving ones John Hlophe.
Parliament’s legal team has told the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday that Hlophe has had 16 years to have his views heard in this gross misconduct matter.
On Tuesday, the court has been hearing Hlophe’s application for an urgent interdict to stop the NA from acting on a recommendation to dismiss him - before the Constitutional Court has reviewed Parliament’s processes.
Representing the Speaker and Parliament, Advocate Adiel Nacerodien told the High Court that Hlophe has had ample time since December to approach the court and there are no merits for his complaint to be heard on an urgent basis.
ALSO READ:
- Hlophe says there'll be far-reaching consequences if Parly removes him without probing his alleged misconduct
- Suspended Judge Hlophe argues Parliament has treated him in an undignified manner
- Parliament to defend urgent application by Hlophe to halt impeachment vote against him
- Hlophe in court bid to halt Parliament's impeachment vote against him
Gauteng High Court Judge Sulet Potterill has been seconded to Cape Town especially to hear the matter.
Parliament said Hlophe is acting pre-emptively - and as if it’s a foregone conclusion the NA will on Wednesday reach the super majority threshold required to remove him.
With Hlophe’s Supreme Court of Appeal case having lapsed - Parliament said there’s no impediment to it proceeding with the impeachment.
For the Democratic Alliance (DA), Advocate Michael Bishop also argued that the matter is not urgent.
He said by challenging Parliament’s processes, Hlophe wants to add more layers to an already highly procedural process that’s taken 16 years to get to this point.
The DA said Hlophe has had multiple opportunities to express his views over the years.
Legal watchdog - Freedom Under Law - has also approached the court to intervene in the matter - arguing Hlophe could receive the redress he seeks in the Constitutional Court.
Judgment will be handed down on Wednesday morning before parliament is due to hold the vote at 4pm.