Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 09CAPETOWN86, CAPE JUDGE PRESIDENT HLOPHE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL SERVICES

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #09CAPETOWN86.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
09CAPETOWN86 2009-04-08 11:45 2011-08-24 01:00 UNCLASSIFIED Consulate Cape Town
P 081145Z APR 09
FM AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3043
INFO AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 
AMEMBASSY ABUJA 
AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 
AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG 
AMCONSUL DURBAN
UNCLAS CAPE TOWN 000086 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV KDEM SF
 
SUBJECT: CAPE JUDGE PRESIDENT HLOPHE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL SERVICES 
COMMISSION 
 
1. (U)  Cape Judge President John Hlophe, regarded by some as a 
future chief justice under a Zuma presidency, is being probed by the 
Judicial Services Commission (JSC). The commission hearings center 
on a complaint against Judge Hlophe, brought by 13 Constitutional 
court judges who claimed he tried to influence them in legal 
proceedings in favor of ANC president Jacob Zuma. Hlophe instituted 
a counter-complaint alleging his rights had been violated by the 
Constitutional court judges when they made their complaint public. 
 
2. (U) The court proceedings started in the Johannesburg High Court 
(JHC) in 2007 when Hlophe challenged the Constitutional court 
judges' complaint and its publication. Hlophe alleged that his 
rights had been violated by the Constitutional Court and he applied 
for an order to have the action by the Constitutional Court against 
him declared unlawful.  On September 26, 2008, the JHC ruled that 
the Constitutional Court had indeed violated Hlophe's rights. The 
matter went on appeal and on April 1, 2009, the  Supreme Court of 
Appeal (SCA) held  that the judges of the Constitutional Court had 
not violated the right of dignity (and various other rights) of 
Hlophe when they went public with the initial complaint. The SCA 
also declared that the judges did not act unlawfully by not allowing 
Hlophe to make representations prior to lodging the complaint with 
the JSC. The SCA pointed out that there was no authority anywhere in 
the world that obliges complainant judges not acting as a court but 
acting as individuals to invite a judge to be heard before laying a 
charge. On the contrary, the SCA stated that allowing Hlophe to make 
such representations at this stage could very well have undermined 
the ensuing complaint processes of the JSC. 
 
3. (U) On March 27, Hhlope's case reverted to the JSC for a final 
decision.  On the same day, Hlophe's lawyers wrote a letter to the 
Commission accusing it of bias and raising several issues on the 
intended procedure to be used by the JSC. The proceedings were 
interrupted on April 1  (the day the SCA judgment was read) when 
Hlophe's lawyer Vuyani Ngalwana presented a sick note saying  Hlophe 
had "severe influenza" and could not attend. The hearing was 
adjourned while the court decided whether to proceed without him. 
In a further development Hlophe fired his advocate and hired new 
Counsel. This latest move is seen as merely another attempt at 
delaying the case and avoiding  impeachment. On April 4, Hlophe 
again applied for a ten day postponement in order to allow his new 
counsel to acquaint himself with the case. The JSC is, however, 
determined to pursue the matter against Hlophe and only granted a 
two day postponement. It appears that Hlophe's strategy is one of 
delay and postponement and the matter is set to continue on April 8, 
2009.