By Angela Quintal and Craig McKune
A rising star in the Johannesburg Bar has withdrawn as one of the two advocates for the country's top court because he was constantly exposed to "seriously patronising" and "degrading" conduct.
Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane - who was admitted to the Bar in July 1992 - said in a letter to state attorney Vijay Dhulam dated May 12 that professionally he also found himself in disagreement with "certain strategic decisions" in the matter.
A former Wits students' representative council president, Sikhakhane was a junior to legal heavyweight Gilbert Marcus SC in the prolonged battle between their Constitutional Court clients and Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe.
This battle, which has seriously damaged the credibility of the judiciary and seen several attempts to broker a settlement, has played out both in the courts and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the constitutional body tasked with hearing complaints against judges.
Judge Hlophe accuses the JSC of bias, and his application to interdict it from continuing its inquiry into a complaint of gross misconduct against him was to be heard by the Johannesburg High Court today.
Not only did he disagree with certain strategic decisions, but he was also constantly left with a feeling that he had no meaningful role to play in the litigation.
Given that he was constantly exposed to conduct that he found seriously patronising and degrading, it had become untenable for him to continue acting as counsel.
Sikhakhane has declined requests for comment and directed all queries to state attorney Vijay Dhulam.
Dhulam would last week only say that Sikhakhane's reasons were personal. He could not be reached for further comment last night.
Meanwhile, the JSC's complaints committee, headed by Supreme Court of Appeal president Lex Mpati, met in Joburg on Saturday to discuss developments in the Judge Hlophe matter.
However, Durban lawyer Mvuseni Ngubane, the commissioner who broke ranks with his JSC colleagues and gave Judge Hlophe the ammunition to claim political bias, was not present. His breaking of the commission's confidentiality rule was therefore not discussed at the meeting.