In the long-running soap opera that is the Western Cape Division of the High Court, Judge Mushtak Parker has responded to fellow Judge Andre le Grange, who broke ranks on 11 March 2020 essentially accusing both Parker and Hlophe of lying about an assault that took place in chambers.

Le Grange’s move is unprecedented and it is believed that several judges will be issuing a letter of support in the coming week. The current crisis in the Western Cape has split the judiciary in the region and caused fear and massive loathing in its corridors.

The first anyone learnt of the alleged assault by Hlophe of Parker was in Deputy Judge President Patricia Goliath’s 14-page complaint to the JSC about Hlophe and his wife, Judge Gayaat Salie-Hlophe. 

Goliath accused Hlophe of gross misconduct including an alleged attempt to rig the bench, as well as assaulting Parker over some issue of sexual impropriety. Goliath accused Salie-Hlophe of having extraordinary control over the court’s business, in the allocation of cases and the appointment of acting judges. 

Hlophe has dismissed Goliath’s complaint as based on “rumour and gossip”.

In his 11 March letter to Hlophe, Le Grange revealed that Parker had “told me in person that you viciously pushed him against a cupboard in his chambers”. 

Western Cape judge breaks ranks, refuses to sit with fellow judge and exposes Hlophe cover-up of assault

Le Grange added that Parker had also informed him that fellow judges had persuaded Parker not to file a criminal complaint against Hlophe, their boss.

A sworn statement Parker had made in this regard had allegedly been handed to another judge in the division, Derek Wille, “for safekeeping.”

Le Grange said that Wille had in fact physically shown him the sworn statement that he was “keeping safe”.

Parker, in a letter to Le Grange dated 13 March 2020, said he “categorically disagreed with your version of what had transpired between you [Le Grange] and I, as well as your version of events between the DJP [Deputy Judge President Goliath] and I.”

“Quite simply, having reflected on the narrative with regard to the alleged assault, very soon thereafter, and without anyone having influenced me in any way whatsoever, I realised that events may not have unfolded in a way I had initially perceived,” Parker responded, rather enigmatically.

He added that his “misperception” of what had transpired “was quite understandable, given the emotional state at the time.” Parker does not explain or elaborate in his letter to Le Grange on the cause of his “emotional state at [the] time”.

In light of this clear personal turmoil, Parker said, “I therefore came to the firm but inescapable conclusion that a complaint of any nature in this regard [against Judge President John Hlophe], will be both inappropriate and unnecessary.”

Parker has accused Le Grange of trying to pressure him to lay charges against Hlophe. He added that Le Grange’s decision to recuse himself from sitting with Parker was “perhaps a cynical attempt to influence proceedings involving the Judge President which are currently before the JCC”.

Parker said he regarded the matter between himself and Hlophe as “personal, private, confidential, and fully resolved”.

“In this regard, I fully align myself with the comments expressed by the Judge President in his response to the DJP, and confirm it as true and correct.”

It seems, for now, Judge Parker may have backed himself into a cul-de-sac. 

Did the assault happen or didn’t it? Can his word be trusted or can’t it?

What was “the narrative” that he needed to “reflect on” and how did events actually unfold? And how did he come to “misperceive” these? How can a JUDGE “misperceive” in the first place?

These are no doubt questions Parker should be able to answer under cross-examination, should he have to face such.

Parker accused Le Grange of “relentlessly pursuing” him to file a complaint against Hlophe “despite me having indicated to you that I had independently decided not to do so”.

Parker said he had “absolutely no complaint whatsoever to lodge against the JP at the JSC/JCC” and that to “comply with your repeated requests will be nonsensical and irregular”.

He said that he “categorically deny that I told you or anyone else that I was influenced or persuaded by any of my colleagues not to pursue any perceived complaint against the Judge President”.

Parker accused Le Grange of “aggressively barging into my chambers” engaging with him “in a belligerent manner using expletives” and leaving the door “wide open and only closed it after my insistence to do so”.

He said Le Grange appeared “fixated at wanting to destroy the Judge President at any cost, regardless of the consequences, and seemingly for your own ambitions and in this endeavour have no regard for those who you use as a stepping stone”.

In his response to Le Grange’s 11 March letter, Hlophe accused Le Grange of failing to consult with him with regard to matters of his recusal from sitting with Parker.

The Judge President added that “your conduct and publication of your letter is unfortunate and inappropriate”.

“This is unbecoming of a judicial officer, especially when proceedings relating to your allegations are pending before the JCC.”

Hlophe told Le Grange that he was entitled to lodge a complaint against any judge with the JSC and that he was at liberty to do so if “in your view, you deemed the complaint to be credible and warranted”. DM