Insinuations of Constitutional Court bias are baseless, and underline the need for the JSC's hearing on Hlophe to be held in public

African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma has stated emphatically that he did not give Cape Judge President John Hlophe a mandate to approach Constitutional Court judges to discuss matters relating to his upcoming fraud and corruption trial.

Since the question of the mandate arises from statements made by the two judges in question that have been submitted to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), and neither they nor Hlophe have been willing to comment any further in public, Zuma must be given the benefit of the doubt until there is evidence to the contrary.

Hlophe, too, should not be judged before he has been allowed to put his side of the story to the JSC, although that does not mean the issue, or its potentially serious legal and political ramifications, should not be roundly debated. As their praise-singers keep saying, both men must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

However, Zuma cannot have his cake and eat it. He and his doggedly vociferous supporters have protested loudly over the fact that the Constitutional Court judges decided to make public the fact that they would lay a complaint with the JSC against Hlophe. They also implied that the leaking of documents and correspondence relating to the matter could compromise Zuma's legal position, and prevent him from getting a fair trial.

Yet Zuma's attorneys appear set on doing precisely what they accuse his political enemies of doing: trying to exert undue pressure on the judiciary. It emerged this week that Zuma's lawyer, Michael Hulley, had written to Chief Justice and Constitutional Court head Pius Langa making a "most gentle inquiry" as to when the court's judgments on Zuma would be delivered and then promising to "vigorously monitor" its handling of the complaint against Hlophe.

Hulley said he was perturbed by speculation that the judgments could be delayed until after the JSC has dealt with the Hlophe issue, and warned that "disturbing allegations and counter-allegations of the most serious import have been made, the logical adjudication of which would invariably affect on the credibility of either the complainant or those complained against, with all the adverse inferences to be drawn". Although carefully worded, the implication of the letter is clear: a delay or adverse finding in the Zuma cases will be interpreted by his camp as a sign that the court has somehow been influenced by the Hlophe saga.

In other words, if Hlophe is found to have been trying to ensure that the outcome favoured Zuma, this could become self-fulfilling because the credibility of the Constitutional Court's ruling in the cases relating to him would automatically be open to question.

This is extremely dangerous territory. There is no basis for any insinuation that the Constitutional Court will be biased against Zuma, even in the event that the JSC finds against Hlophe. To even hint otherwise is to question the credibility of the highest court in the land, one of the last pillars of our democracy that has not already been damaged by the political battle raging within the ANC.

Fortunately, Langa has called Hulley's bluff by giving him a week to explain how the Hlophe saga might affect Zuma's rights. Hulley will now have to justify his vague insinuations or take a blow to his own credibility.

The depths to which Zuma's battle for survival has sunk not only raise further questions about his suitability to be president of the country, but underline the importance of the JSC's Hlophe hearing being transparent and open to the public. It is now clear that Zuma and his team will stop at nothing to get what they want, even if this means him becoming president of a country whose constitution has been undermined, the credibility of the judiciary shattered, and where there is no respect for the rule of law.

With acknowledgements to Business Day.