Langa and Others v Hlophe

The appellants, comprising the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and other Justices of the Constitutional Court (including acting judges), lodged a complaint of judicial misconduct with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) against the respondent, Judge President John Hlophe. The complaint alleged that Hlophe JP had improperly attempted to influence two Constitutional Court judges in relation to the pending Thint/Zuma judgments. A media statement announcing the complaint was issued shortly thereafter. The respondent was not informed beforehand, afforded an opportunity to respond, or consulted prior to the laying of the complaint or the publication of the media statement. While the JSC process was pending, Hlophe JP approached the High Court seeking declaratory relief that his constitutional rights (including dignity, equality, privacy, and the right to be heard) had been violated by the appellants’ conduct. The High Court partially upheld his application. The Constitutional Court judges appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the respondent’s application in its entirety.

This case is a leading authority on judicial discipline and procedural fairness in South Africa. It clarifies that the audi alteram partem principle does not apply at the preliminary stage of lodging a complaint with the JSC and affirms the JSC’s exclusive constitutional role in investigating allegations of judicial misconduct. The judgment reinforces the distinction between the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and the adjudicative stage, and underscores the limits of constitutional rights claims in interlocutory challenges to disciplinary processes.