Prof Pierre De Vos is a disgrace to the scholarly/professorship fraternity

The Justice for Hlophe Alliance is disappointed after reading the ill informed views and preconceived ideas which were expressed by the self appointed constitutional expert, one Prof Pierre de Vos. Although this was to be expected from the White supremacist that he (de Vos) is who always sees things in Black and White, we nevertheless still had hopes that he would one day see things in clear colour and realise that life is not always about whether one is Black or White. We expected better from someone of his stature, especially one who is supposed to be a good example to the up and coming, particularly the young University kids who look up to him for guidance, alike in both the White and Black communities. The misguided criticism by Prof de Vos (see here) which is directed at the JFH Alliance stems from its nomination of judge president Hlophe "for the position of Chief Justice" he says. It is common knowledge that a Chief Justice is only appointed by the state president as provided for in Section 174 (3) of the Constitution of 1996 which he correctly quoted. That fact is not in dispute, certainly not by the Justice for Hlophe Alliance at any rate; hence in our press statement it is precisely for this reason that we submitted ourselves to the provisions of the constitution. We further confirmed that we respect the constitutional processes that are followed in appointing a Chief Justice.

We reiterate that as the JFH Alliance we are neither above the constitution nor the laws governing this country. Having said that, we maintain that it is still within our rights to nominate justice Hlophe to/for any position we deem him fit to occupy. This includes lobbying for his consideration by the state president who has a prerogative to appoint the Chief Justice outside of the recommended candidates. In nominating justice Hlophe, in the first instance it is for the position of constitutional court judge and this runs concurrently with the nomination for his recommendation by the JSC for the Chief Justice position but failing that a direct route as per subsections (3). For the record, there is no constitutional provision which stipulates that the state president can't be lobbied publicly or that as the JFH Alliance we can't put up a name for the JSC to recommend or for the state president's consideration for the nominee to be appointed for this ultimate position of Chief Justice. Prof de Vos conveniently left out this part about "after all considerations have been done by the relevant authority". As the Justice for Hlophe Alliance we chose to play open cards rather than go behind closed doors or lobby behind the scenes. This route removes malice from the whole process and it removes any doubts about our real intentions in undertaking this action. The state president as de Vos correctly pointed out has neither to consult the JSC nor the opposition for that matter, in appointing the Chief Justice.

It therefore makes it a courtesy if ever the state president does consult any of these parties for their input. In his diatribe however de Vos lambasted the JFH Alliance for its "unprecedented" action and principled stance. He likened our well thought out and researched nomination to his laughable analogy were he to nominate unsaved people, two of whom are deceased (one a stalwart in politics and the other a king of pop in the entertainment industry) for the position of the Pope. How exactly can de Vos ever nominate a deceased person for the position of being a Pope, we wonder? As the JFH Alliance we take exception and find Prof de Vos' remarks childish. The professor's innuendo point only in one direction and that is that he has a waupt sense of humour and at worst is an airhead. In his article, Prof Pierre de Vos confirmed what we have always known about him and that is that he has an IQ the size of a child. Prof de De Vos may be a professor but professorship, in his case as we have learnt, is not necessarily a measure of intelligence. The Justice for Hlophe Alliance's analysis is not at all an ad hominem attack on the professor but it is a brutally honest assessment in sizing up his state of mind including his characteristic traits using the Johari window. Prof de Vos unfortunately failed the test a long time ago on whether he can be objective on matters relating to or stuff being said about justice Hlophe. We suspect that he (de Vos) hates judge president Hlophe for his principled as well as pro transformation stance and he feels that were he (justice Hlophe) to be successful, this might take away opportunities and/or jeorpadise future consideration of aspirant White folks on the bench.

Prof de Vos is wrong about justice Hlophe though and it must be put on record that justice Hlophe does not desire to transform the judiciary because of an ulterior motive or to deny any race (be it White, Coloured or Indian folks) opportunities on the bench.

That assumption by Prof de Vos couldn't be further from the truth and at worst it is a sorry excuse for trying to discredit the judge. The fact of the matter is that it is a constitutional imperative that our judiciary must be transformed such that it is representative of the demographics of this country. That is something that neither Prof de Vos nor people of his ilk can change because such continued imbalances in the judiciary fly against the spirit of the constitution.

It would seem that justice Hlophe's cardinal sin in Pierre de Vos' eyes is that he (Hlophe) believes in the constitution entirely and he unlike Prof de Vos doesn't apply it selectively but applies it and would continue to apply it to the letter. The constitutional expert or so Prof de Vos regards himself by claiming to be a fundi thereof when he says that, "no one - I repeat no one can be nominated for this position" fails to acknowledge the simple fact that as the Justice for Hlophe Alliance and citizens of this country we do not need his permission in order to publicly lobby the state president. The un(honourable) professor needs to realise that he doesn't have to take positions for or against because he is informed by the colour of the person's skin but it must be based on principles.

We now realise that as the JFH Alliance we were obviously asking too much and that to expect Prof de Vos to have principles was being too optimistic. Prof de Vos has proved to be a classical case of someone who is trying to grab attention at all costs but for all the wrong reasons. Prof de Vos feels threatened when a credible organisation emerges and genuinely pushes a just cause especially because as the JFH Alliance we have managed to get the ear of South Africans, thanks to the media which has given our cause a platform to state our case. Prof de Vos is therefore worried, very worried in fact, that the JFH Alliance might succeed in its cause which would reduce the "rightwing elements'" stranglehold in the judiciary.

To us as the Justice for Hlophe Alliance, justice Hlophe remains a Chief Justice in waiting until events unfold otherwise. We have written a 94 page document (see here) but Prof de Vos doesn't comment on the merits or demerits of the said document, instead he resorted to ridicule. As the Justice for Hlophe Alliance we subscribe to the philosophy that, "one should not argue with a fool because he/she will bring you down to his/her level and beat you with experience".

Accordingly we are not going to stoop to Prof de Vos' level; instead we would rather concentrate our energy on making sure that our nominee does indeed become the Chief Justice of South Africa, a position for which we ultimately envisage for him to fill in a few months time. As the JFH Alliance we are determined to make justice Hlophe a Chief Justice of the people, for the people and by the people.

A better analogy is to take the election of the state president who is, for instance, elected by the national assembly in parliament. It has however never stopped various lobby groups, political activists and parties from publicly nominating him/her as their "preferred" state president (not even those who denounce his/her candidacy). This essentially means that even before the country holds its elections, preferred candidates are already known by the public after their nomination and are thus regarded as president in waiting. The successful political party would of course still have to get enough seats in parliament after winning the majority vote (i.e. 51%) in the subsequent elections in order for their preferred candidate to succeed. This feat would enable the political party to realise their dream and thus enable it to appoint people of their choice in various office bearer positions in parliament.

Whilst the JFH Alliance is not a political party and has no aspirations of ever becoming one, the fact of the matter doesn't change though, that being that as the JFH Alliance we have done exactly that (i.e. to lobby for our preferred candidate for the position of Chief Justice). We realise too that as a first attempt, we must get our nominee to be appointed as a constitutional court judge hence in terms of our nomination and his acceptance thereof we have punted him to fill one of four soon to be vacant positions in the constitutional court. There are many contradictions which are contained in the very constitution de Vos claims to know so well but he can't point them out - so much for an expert.

Perhaps de Vos could have spared himself the embarrassment and established as to how has the JFH Alliance nominated justice Hlophe. For his information, we are going to take this process further to embark on a million signature campaign in support of our written motivation from the public. This exercise will be undertaken in order to convince the state president, the JSC, particularly the doubting Thomases like de Vos that appointing judge president Hlophe would be good for the country (especially in resuscitating the public's confidence in the judiciary which is no-where near the levels it should be). Therefore, for de Vos to insinuate that the JFH Alliance is illiterate and that it has suffered a gross lapse of memory and sarcastically remarking that perhaps the members of the JFH Alliance were overseas when the outgoing Chief Justice was elected is plain right silly. For the sake of slow learners like de Vos, the power and the will of the people is much stronger than the conniving agenda of people like him.

Issued by Reggie Xaba on behalf of the Justice for Hlophe Alliance, Western Cape Chapter, July 20 2009

Click here to sign in to receive our free daily headline email newsletter