The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) says there's "nothing special" about the gross misconduct finding against Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe and it feels "no pressure" to finalise the nearly 13-year-old complaint.

Over the weekend, a JSC Judicial Conduct Tribunal, led by retired Judge Joop Labuschagne, found that Hlophe was guilty of impeachable conduct for trying to sway two Constitutional Court justices to rule in favour of then African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma in 2008. At the time, Zuma was seeking to challenge the legality of search warrants used by the then Scorpions unit to seize 93 000 pages of evidence in his recently revived corruption prosecution.

In its report, the tribunal found that Hlophe embarked on a premeditated campaign to influence Justices Chris Jafta and Bess Nkabinde in their evaluation of the case – including that he told Nkabinde there was "no case" against Zuma and that people would lose their jobs when he became president.

But, for Hlophe to face impeachment over that finding, the JSC (minus the political party representatives that sit on it) must first endorse the tribunal's report and find him guilty of impeachable conduct, newly appointed JSC spokesperson Dali Mpofu stressed on Monday night.

Mpofu said, "What we really want to emphasise is that this is being dealt with like any other matter. This is not the first time that this has happened, so there's nothing special. It will be dealt with like all the other matters."

The finding made against Hlophe is only the second such finding made against a judge.

Judge Nkola Motata was the first judicial officer who was found guilty of gross misconduct by a JSC tribunal over his 2007 drunk driving accident, criminal trial and racially loaded comments after the crash, but the JSC elected not to pursue his impeachment. Instead, it ordered him to pay a fine of more than one million rand – a ruling that is now being challenged in court.

Despite the fact that the Constitutional Court's 2008 complaint against Hlophe has taken nearly 13 years to finalise, Mpofu insists that the JSC feels "no pressure" to ensure it decides on its response to the tribunal's report.

He says the decision can only happen "once the JSC has given both parties an opportunity to make representations on the tribunal report". While stating that the JSC would deal with the report "as soon as possible", Mpofu was unable to give any timeframes for when that process would be finalised.

According to Mpofu, the JSC maintains that it can only recommend that President Cyril Ramaphosa suspend Hlophe once it has endorsed the tribunal's report, found the Judge President guilty of gross misconduct and referred his impeachment process to the National Assembly. Since a two-thirds vote will be required to remove Hlophe from office, his impeachment must be supported by the ANC for it to be carried out.

Lawson Naidoo, from the Council for the Advancement of the SA Constitution, does not agree with Mpofu’s interpretation.

He points out that the JSC Act states that as soon as the JSC requests the appointment of a tribunal to investigate a gross misconduct complaint against a judge, "it must inform the president and advise him whether to suspend the respondent judge". In the case of Judge Mushtak Parker, who is currently facing impeachment over his apparent dishonesty about whether or not Hlophe physically assaulted him, the JSC recommended his suspension – and the president obliged.

"Now that a finding of gross misconduct has been made by the tribunal, it is surely incumbent on the JSC to make a recommendation for the suspension of Judge Hlophe to the president," Naidoo argues.

Mpofu does not agree, cementing a conflict that seems increasingly likely to end up in court – where Hlophe is also almost certain to challenge any sanction he may face as a consequence of the tribunal's report. And that means a further delay in the finalisation of a saga that, perhaps more than other, has exposed the JSC's profound inability to quickly and effectively hold judges to account.

Mpofu, however, contends that Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng has "adequately explained" why there had been delays in the finalisation of the Hlophe complaint, which he says "were because of processes that were outside of our control".

"So we don't feel any pressure. We will deal with this matter just as with any other matter...with the necessary seriousness that it deserves."