The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The JSC has the solemn duty to rule whether a judge has been guilty of gross misconduct, and if so, to recommend impeachment to Parliament. The JSC alone has that duty. If it fails to discharge it appropriately, questions remain unresolved and the administration of justice is not well served.

We regret the fact that the JSC failed to take the contradictory version of events given by Constitutional Court Judge Bess Nkabinde and Judge President John Hlophe to a formal inquiry with cross examination in order to resolve the dispute of facts. We find its approach - that the versions are irreconcilable but "immaterial" to the question whether Judge Hlophe attempted to improperly influence Judge Nkabinde - quite extraordinary.

One can only conclude on perusing the ruling that the JSC wanted to avoid cross-examination at all costs. "After such a formal hearing we will have nothing more than what we already have" it presupposes, "except what may be extracted in cross-examination". But that is the whole point! A finding of credibility or reasonable deduction would have had direct consequences. It seems the JSC was seeking not to discharge its duty but to duck it. It appeared to be avoiding the possibility that it might have to make a finding of gross misconduct. Simultaneously, its relief at the fact that the Judicial Service Commission Amendment Act is not yet in force and that it cannot yet make any lesser adverse finding is palpable. This reinforces the impression that the majority just wanted the whole thing to go away.