The reader says the argument that Dr John Hlophe is a fine choice for the Judicial Service Commission seems to be based on his qualifications (indeed impressive), and because he will push a race-coded agenda. Picture: Armand Hough/Independent Newspapers
Dear Editor,
I was struck by two things reading Sizwe Dlamini’s article (“Hlophe’s JSC appointment sparks concern over Oppenheimer, Soros influence”, 7 July).
The incoherence of the attacks on particular NGOs (non-governmental organisations), and the concerning lack of engagement with Dr John Hlophe’s judicial conduct.
NGOs are a critical part of a democratic and pluralist system. They may or may not represent large constituencies, but they bring important ideas to the attention of the public and the state.
Indeed, these are often not popular – the Helen Suzman Foundation’s legal challenges on the Zimbabwe Exemption Permit brought loaded and often threatening vilification onto that organisation – but they are nevertheless vital in holding the state and other powerful institutions to the demands of the constitution and the law.
Indeed, it is not apparent that the bodies making these accusations have much of a presence or that they represent large numbers of people themselves. But they do have an argument to make, and they are engaging in precisely what they criticise the “Oppenheimer” and “Soros” funded bodies for doing.
All of these have every right to make their voices heard.
Incidentally, there is something bizarre about the accusations made against their targets. The Ahmed Kathrada Foundation being “Zionist” and a tool of “white monopoly capital”? Really?
This is a smear, not an argument, and, in my view, unconnected with reality. It is also interesting to see the Soros accusation, so prominent among the conspiratorial right, being taken up by (evidently) conspiratorial “progressives”.
So too the argument that Dr Hlophe is a fine choice for the Judicial Service Commission. This seems to be based on his qualifications (indeed impressive), and because he will push a race-coded agenda. Yet someone who attempted to influence other justices has shown a worrying disdain for judicial integrity.
Attempting to sway judges’ thinking in favour of a politically powerful (indeed, politically popular) figure threatens society as a whole. It corrupts institutions and ensures that certain people are beyond the reach of the law.
No doubt some would regard this as an acceptable price to pay for desired political outcomes; but remember that a corrupted legal system offers no protection to anyone. In particular, it provides none at all to society’s poorest and most vulnerable.
Terence Corrigan
Institute of Race Relations