In a historic move, South Africa’s parliament has accused one of the country’s most senior judges of misconduct.
Western Cape judge John Hlophe tried to influence judges at the country’s highest court in a case related to former president Jacob Zuma, an investigation has found.
He approached two judges in 2008 about whether they would support Mr Zuma in a judgment related to a corruption case.
Mr Hlophe always denied the allegations.
The long delay between the criminal charges and his removal was the result of a lengthy appeal and investigation.
The removal of a judge has been unprecedented since the country’s democratic era began in 1994.
A second magistrate, Nkola Motata, was also charged with disorderly conduct and racial violence in connection with a 2007 drink-driving incident.
Mr Motata, now retired, was a judge of the Gauteng High Court at the time of the incident.
He also rejected the charges.
President Cyril Ramaphosa must sign the decision and set a formal termination date.
In that case, the judge would lose all benefits, including a lifetime salary of more than R1 million ($53,000, £42,000) a year, car allowance and comprehensive medical care.
Mr Hlophe was first indicted on Wednesday night, with MPs voting with the required two-thirds majority.
The decision was supported by the ruling African National Congress (ANC), the main opposition Democratic Alliance (DA), and other smaller parties.
Mr Hlofe’s last attempt to block his possible removal from office was rejected by the court just hours ago.
His dismissal was soon followed by Mr Motata’s dismissal as well.
An investigation by the regulatory Judiciary Commission (JSC) led to Mr Hlofe contacting two of the 11 judges of the Constitutional Court in 2008, which ruled in Zuma’s favor regarding his corruption case.
It turned out that he was trying to influence. Cases involving arms deals are important.
Mr Zuma denies the corruption allegations and there is no suggestion that he had anything to do with Mr Hlofe’s actions.
Although none of the accused judges have responded to the parliamentarian’s decision, Hlofe said in court papers that Parliament’s role is not simply to rubber-stamp the JSC’s findings, but to conduct its own investigation. He claimed that it was.
ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula said the party welcomed parliament’s decision, while the DA’s Glynnis Breytenbach said her party felt vindicated after “years of the ANC government dragging its feet” on the judges’ removal.
“We may have waited 15 years for this moment, but the impeachment of Judge Hlophe, or any judge, has profound implications for judicial integrity in South Africa. It underscores the importance of upholding the highest ethical standards, the rule of law, and the constitution among judicial officers”
This emphasizes the importance of upholding the highest ethical standards, the rule of law, and the Constitution among judicial officers.
The opposition Economic Freedom Fighters Party voted against impeachment, with MP Busisiwe Mkhwebane arguing that the judges were remorseful and should be allowed to spend the rest of their lives in peace.