Judges, the quartet argued, should not be placed “in fear, through manufactured complaint or blatant criticism”.
In democratic societies, the team added, “judges must not be liable to disciplinary sanctions, or premature retirement because their decisions, discussions or expression of views do not find favour with the powers that be, or with any powerful vested interest, or with prevailing public opinion”.
Judge Hlophe’s team equated the Judicial Conduct Tribunal akin to a “criminal prosecution” and accused Justices Chris Jafta and Bess Nkabinde of altering statements after 12 years, not out of their own volition but under duress.
“JP is entitled to make a submission of no case to answer [in local lingua, a discharge], on the basis there is no evidence that the JP committed the offence referred to in the charge sheet,” his team argued.