On March 11 and 12, 2008, the Constitutional Court heard arguments for leave to appeal in the matters of Thint Limited, J G Zuma, Thint Holdings Limited v National Director of Public Prosecutions.
In August 2009, the JSC found that the evidence in respect of the complaint did not justify a finding that Hlophe was guilty of gross misconduct. The matter was dismissed. Subsequently, two separate applications were launched challenging the JSC’s decision. In March 2012, Hlophe was granted leave to appeal the two applications.
The reason for the disagreement was that Justices Nkabinde and Jafta were of the view that the present Tribunal did not have jurisdiction and under the previous law, complaints had to be placed under oath. Hlophe’s stance was that nothing prohibits such discussions. He also asserted that there was no rule that if a judge was not part of a court which heard the matter and reserved judgment, he or she was not permitted to discuss pending cases with judges of that court.