Hlophe stand-off - is there a prima facie case?

A Business Day report says the main thing the JSC was supposed to decide was whether 'the Constitutional Court judges and Judge President Hlophe have, respectively, and judged purely on the papers at this stage, made out a prima facie case of gross misconduct within the meaning of section 177(1)(a) of the Constitution' - in other words, whether, if all allegations in the complaints were true, there would be a case to answer for gross misconduct - grounds for impeachment. But the JSC was deliberately silent in its statement on whether it had made a decision on this. All the commission said was that it had 'unanimously decided that, in view of the conflict of fact on the papers placed before it, it was necessary to refer both the complaint by the Constitutional Court and the counter-complaint by the Judge President to the hearing of oral evidence'. Commission spokesperson Marumo Moerane said yesterday: 'The JSC decided to issue the statement in those terms deliberately.' But, says the report, even though this is deliberately not stated, it is probable that the JSC decided there was a prima facie case in at least one of the complaints. Full Business Day report

DA leader Helen Zille has called on the JSC to open its hearing to the public. 'The gravity of the JSC's hearings demands that this issue be resolved as expeditiously and transparently as possible,' said Zille. She made the request in writing yesterday to JSC deputy chairman Justice Craig Howie, notes a report on The Citizen site. Zille added: 'According to the rules governing JSC hearings, the JSC is entitled to permit the media and the public to attend any inquiry 'unless good cause is shown for their exclusion'.' She said public hearings were vital to prevent any further 'outrageous' suggestions from the ANC that the Constitutional Court had an agenda other than upholding the Constitution. Full report in The Citizen