Freedom Under Law v Judicial Service Commission and Others

Judges of the Constitutional Court lodged a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) alleging that Judge President John Hlophe improperly attempted to influence pending Constitutional Court judgments in the Zuma/Thint matters. Hlophe JP filed a counter-complaint against the Constitutional Court judges. After a complex procedural history involving preliminary investigations, aborted hearings, court challenges, and a reconstituted JSC, the JSC ultimately decided in August 2009 that the evidence did not justify a finding of gross misconduct and treated the matter as finalised. Freedom Under Law, a public interest organisation dedicated to strengthening judicial independence, applied to the North Gauteng High Court to review and set aside the JSC’s decisions. The High Court found that Freedom Under Law had standing but dismissed the review on the merits. Freedom Under Law appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Leave to appeal was granted; the appeal was upheld. The decision of the JSC taken on 15 August 2009 that the evidence did not justify a finding of gross misconduct and that the matter be treated as finalised was reviewed and set aside. The JSC and Judge President Hlophe were ordered jointly and severally to pay Freedom Under Law’s costs. Leave to cross-appeal on standing was refused.

The case affirms the constitutional duty of the Judicial Service Commission to properly and transparently investigate allegations of gross judicial misconduct. It confirms broad public-interest standing to hold constitutional bodies accountable and underscores that serious factual disputes concerning judicial integrity cannot be resolved without proper evidentiary procedures. The judgment strengthens judicial accountability while safeguarding judicial independence.