South Africa judicial system is captured by white interests

The Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) has expressed its disdain after a judgment was handed down on Friday by the Western Cape High Court against its deputy president, Dr John Hlophe who was interdicted from taking part in any Judicial Services Commission (JSC) activities.

Judge Johannes Daffue handed down judgment in an application by the Democratic Alliance, Corruption Watch and Freedom Under Law (FUL) after they each applied to have Hlophe recused from the JSC separately.

Its national office told IOL it was disappointed in the judgment.

"The Umkhonto weSizwe Party notes with great disappointment but with no surprise because as we have always said. This judicial system is captured. This is not a judgment but a political ploy to ensure that Judge Hlophe does not participate in the JSC. In actual fact, more than anything else, the reality is that the National Assembly draws its powers from the Constitution and by virtue of that is allowed to make its own rules.

"For a court and some judges to now want to come to a conclusion that they can now make a determination whether the National Assembly applied the laws of the back of the Constitution correctly or not for him to participate in the JSC which he is supposed to be allowed to as a member of the National Assembly. And then, coming to this conclusion just demonstrates that the judicial system is now entering the political landscape. It is getting deeper," it said.

The party further claimed the agenda of the DA from preventing Hlophe from partaking in JSC activities was because it was concerned its candidate for the Western Cape Judge President would be scuppered.

"Because they know very well where that judge [Hlophe] exists, he always excels. And wherever he excels, they won't exist. That is their biggest problem," the party said.

Another party that agreed that the judgment was unfair was ActionSA. Its Parliamentary Chief Whip, Lerato Ngobeni said the party would refer this matter to Parliament's Constitutional Review Committee.

"We believe this underscores the urgent need for constitutional reforms to clarify the glaring contradictions in eligibility criteria for public office, representing a clear constitutional blind spot.

"In light of the fact that John Hlophe is a duly elected Member of Parliament, a position that meets all constitutional requirements as per Section 47 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, ActionSA believes that the argument questioning his fitness to serve on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) presents a unique challenge and constitutional blind spot.

"This contention reveals a potential contradiction in the eligibility criteria for public office. On one hand, his election to Parliament signifies a recognition of his competence and ability to represent South Africans, while on the other hand, the claim that he is unfit for the JSC—a deployment by the very house to which he was duly elected—raises questions about whether the standards for these two roles are misaligned, as we believe the judgment suggests," Ngobeni said.

She said it would argue that if Hlophe is deemed fit to serve as the leader of the official opposition in the same legislative body responsible for shaping the country's laws, it raising the question of why the prevailing standards would not apply to the JSC and the other committees Hlophe currently serves on.

"This inconsistency underscores the need for a more consistent and transparent application of eligibility criteria to safeguard the integrity of both Parliament and the JSC in the future.

ActionSA will therefore refer this matter to the Constitutional Review Committee to initiate a review process of applicable legislation, rules, and frameworks to seek to clarify this contradiction and ensure that eligibility standards for public office are consistent, transparent and uphold the integrity of both Parliament and the Judicial Service Commission in this particular case," Ngobeni said.