The Democratic Alliance (DA) is challenging impeached judge John Hlophe's designation to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), in the Western Cape High Court, noting that the party’s legal action underscores a fundamental concern for the integrity and independence of South Africa’s judiciary.

Hlophe is the first judge to be removed from office by the National Assembly (NA), after the JSC found him guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct. His conviction resulted from his attempts to unlawfully influence two judges of the Constitutional Court, Judges Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta, in 2008, to rule in favour of Jacob Zuma in cases before them.

In July, Hlophe was nominated by the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) to serve on the JSC, which is responsible for nominating judges for appointment, and for disciplining judges.

DA Federal Council chairperson Helen Zille said the core issue was whether someone with a history of misconduct should be allowed to participate in the selection of judges, a role, she said demanded unimpeachable standards.

“Our challenge is not just a legal battle; it is a stand for the values of our constitutional democracy, ensuring that those who hold power within our judiciary are beyond reproach,” she said.

The DA approached the Western Cape High Court, in July, to have the NA’s decision to appoint Hlophe as a parliamentary representative to the JSC reviewed and set aside and have him interdicted from serving until a decision is made.

“This designation presents a profound conflict of interest. John Hlophe’s impeachment, after a prolonged 16-year battle, was a stark reflection of his conduct, and it is inconceivable that such a compromised individual should have a say in the selection of future judges,” Zille argued.

While the DA acknowledges the right of political parties to nominate representatives to the JSC, it believes the appointment of somebody with a “tarnished” record to this critical role is a “blatant disregard for the standards of integrity and propriety” that the country’s judicial system demands.

Zille said this also exacerbated the public’s distrust in political processes.

The DA pointed out that alongside its partners - Freedom Under Law and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution – they were defending a principle that affected every South African.

Zille said the outcome of this case would impact all those who had ever appeared before a court, or who may do so in the future.

Civil rights organisation AfriForum has also applied to the Constitutional Court asking it to declare Hlophe’s appointment as “irrational, unlawful and in conflict” with the NA’s constitutional duty.