Hlophe turns to ConCourt in bid to appeal ruling that barred him from JSC interviews
John Hlophe was last year prohibited from sitting on the body that is responsible for interviewing candidates for judicial appointments and making recommendations to the president.
MK Party parliamentary leader, John Hlophe, in Parliament. Picture: @ParliamentofRSA/X
JOHANNESBURG - Impeached judge, John Hlophe, has turned to the Constitutional Court over a judgment that barred him from sitting in the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) interviews.
Hlophe was last year prohibited from sitting on the body that is responsible for interviewing candidates for judicial appointments and making recommendations to the president.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) and Corruption Watch approached the Western Cape High Court on an urgent basis challenging Hlophe's designation to the JSC.
ALSO READ:
• Hlophe and MK Party's JSC sitting appeal dismissed
• MK Party, Hlophe come under fire in court for slanderous remarks about judiciary
• WC High Court takes dim view of derogatory comments made by MK Party against judiciary
• MK's Hlophe insists he has the right to sit on the JSC
The DA previously argued that Hlophe's participation would render any recommendation the body makes to the president unlawful.
Hlophe, the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party parliamentary leader, is seeking to directly appeal the Western Cape High Court judgment at the Constitutional Court.
Hlophe's attorney, Barnabas Xulu, described Hlophe's barring as constitutional absurdity as the order of the Western Cape High Court only barred his client from participating in the JSC without impugning the constitutionality of his membership to the National Assembly, which forms the basis of his eligibility to the designated to the commission.
The Constitution dictates that the JSC consists of six members designated by the National Assembly from among its members, at least three of whom must be members of opposition parties.
Xulu cited this and argued that there was no legal basis for singling Hlophe out and attacking the procedure for the designation of National Assembly members only insofar as it applied to Hlophe.
He labeled this as a discriminatory approach of the Constitution, which prescribes that everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal
protection and benefit of the law.