"Hey man, there's no fight between the two of us, come shake my hand," said Hlophe to his former colleague at the University of the Transkei in the 80s, according to a loose translation by a Mail&Guardian scribe.

Due to an eleventh-hour court application by publications including the M&G, journalists and some members of the public, including Afriforum lobbyist Kallie Kriel, Hlophe's side of the story was heard for the first time at a Judicial Service Commission sub-committee holding a preliminary inquiry into the complaint.

Constitutional Court judges last year complained to the JSC about what they felt was an improper discussion with Jafta, who was seconded to the court, and Judge Bess Nkabinde about a judgment relating to Jacob Zuma before he became president.

Telling his side of the story, Jafta said he and Hlophe were old friends from their days at the University of the Transkei, where Hlophe was a head of department and he was a lecturer in Constitutional Law.

Their wives were also friends and they saw each other at judicial meetings after they became judges.

When Hlophe went to visit him at the Constitutional Court in March 2008, he didn't find the meeting itself unusual, but did find the discussion that took place on the pending judgment relating to search and seizure warrants issued against Zuma unusual.

"It's unusual because we don't discuss pending cases [if they are not one of the judges involved]," he told Gauteng Judge President Bernard Ngoepe and advocates Marumo Moerane and Ishmael Semenya, who were running the inquiry.

Asked whether Hlophe knew about this practice, he said Hlophe had not sat on the Supreme Court of Appeal or the Constitutional Court before, "so he might not know about it".

He said he didn't find the conduct sufficient to merit a complaint and only raised it after hearing about a similar experience by Nkabinde.

He said he would not want to make the inference that Hlophe had tried to influence him.

"One can only work on an inference. I would really not know what intention he had. One has to look at the facts of the discussion and draw an inference."

Earlier, Hlophe told the committee that when he visited Jafta, they spoke generally about how his work was going at the Constitutional Court and that the cases were challenging.

He said he remarked to Jafta that the Zuma matter was an important judgment that everyone was talking about, particularly the privilege issue - whether a laywer's notes on confidential conversations with clients could be seized.

He said the case was important for lawyers and for judges, during their one-and-a-half hour conversation on a variety of subjects.

He said his comment that Jafta was their last hope was never in the context that the case must be decided "properly".

"I never said the ruling of the court must be in favour of Zuma," he said.

He said he meant it in the context of the Constitutional Court clearing up the prickly issue of privilege.

If he had wanted to influence the judges, he would have approached more of them. There was also never any suggestion he discussed the matter with anybody else.

Jafta said that he didn't expect this conversation to come up and moved away from the discussion by changing the subject.

The inquiry heard that it was after talking to Nkabinde that the judges decided to lodge a joint complaint.

The inquiry continues with Nkabinde expected to speak in the afternoon.