National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza defends the appointment of MK Party MP John Hlophe’s to the Judicial Services Commission, in court. Picture: X
The Speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, has defended the choice made by parliament to appoint Dr John Hlophe, the MP for the uMkhonto Wesizwe party(MKP), to the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).
This comes after she submitted an explanatory affidavit on Tuesday, August 19, to the High Court in response to the legal challenges concerning the National Assembly’s decision to appoint Hlophe as one of its six representatives to the JSC.
Hlophe is currently an MP for the MK party, which is led by former president Jacob Zuma.
This legal action has been initiated by multiple organisations, including the Democratic Alliance (DA), Corruption Watch, Freedom Under Law, and AfriForum, who have expressed concerns about the legitimacy of Hlophe’s appointment.
This decision has been controversial due to Hlophe’s prior removal from his judicial position under section 177 of the constitution for gross misconduct.
His election to parliament and subsequent appointment to the JSC by the MKP have prompted legal scrutiny regarding the appropriateness of his appointment.
In her affidavit, Didiza emphasised her impartial stance, stating, “The Speaker’s role is limited to ensuring that the procedures followed in parliament are in line with the constitution and parliamentary rules.
“The designation of members to the JSC is primarily a political decision made by parliament and reflects the majority view expressed during the vote.”
She further clarified that neither the constitution nor parliamentary rules automatically disqualify Hlophe from serving on the JSC based on his prior judicial removal.
Didiza also highlighted that all parliamentary actions, including Hlophe’s designation, adhered to the established rules and procedures.
“There is no rule or constitutional provision explicitly barring a member of parliament, including Hlophe, from being nominated to serve on the JSC,” Didiza said.
She emphasised that the review applications are contesting the wider parliamentary process rather than a decision rendered by the speaker.
Confident that the court’s judgment will bring clarity to this unprecedented case, Didiza has ensured that all relevant information is before the Court to facilitate a fair resolution.
She remains committed to upholding the principles of transparency, accountability, and the rule of law as the matter proceeds through the judiciary.
IOL