R 071255Z JUL 08
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 4976
INFO AFRICAN UNION COLLECTIVE
SOUTHERN AF DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS PRETORIA 001459 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KDEM KJUS PGOV SF
SUBJECT: ALLEGATIONS OF JUDICIAL LOBBYING AND 
CONFIDENTIALITY BREACHES AMONG SOUTH AFRICA'S HIGHEST COURT 
JUDGES 
 
¶1. (U) SUMMARY:  The Constitutional Court and Cape Judge 
President John Hlope swapped allegations of breaching 
judicial protocol and attempts to suborn high court judges in 
a high-level corruption case.  Hlope is alleged to have tried 
to influence two judges who will preside over aspects of the 
ruling party president's corruption trial. END SUMMARY 
 
¶2. (U) The full body of 11 Constitutional Court judges 
tendered a detailed case against Western Cape Judge President 
John Hlope to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on June 
¶17. The 27 page complaint alleges that Hlope contacted the 
judges in late March 2008 in an attempt to influence their 
rulings in appeals related to the Directorate of Special 
Operations (aka The Scorpions) corruption investigation 
against ANC President Zuma.  Hlope encouraged both judges to 
decide "properly" in the cases and reminded them that "some 
judges were going to lose their jobs."  Hlope lobbied one 
judge by emphasizing what he thought was their shared Zulu 
ethnicity, which later turned out to be false as the judge 
had taken her husband's name. He encouraged another judge to 
"make himself available for appointment to the Constitutional 
Court," implying he could make this happen.  The complaint 
also states that Hlope told the judges he was politically 
well-connected and had ties to the national intelligence 
leadership implying that their positive response would be to 
their benefit. 
 
¶3. (U) Days before the Constitutional Court judges filed 
their complaint, members of the ANC party, the legal 
community and Judge Hlope himself criticized the 
Constitutional Court for publicly airing internal judicial 
workings and condemning him before the complaint was ever 
made. (NOTE: No one has publicly defended Judge Hlope's 
innocence of the charges, only that the proper procedure was 
not used END NOTE).  The Constitutional Court judges address 
these charges by arguing that it was in the interest of 
judicial transparency for all aspects of the complaint to be 
heard publicly.  The fate of Judge Hlope is now in the JSC 
which will report its findings in the coming weeks. 
 
BOST