Mbenenge referred to female staff as ‘big girls', ‘children', often commenting on their appearance, tribunal hears
Nkqayi — who later unexpectedly revealed she had left the division in April 2025 as she feared she would end up in a 'mental institution' because of 'depression' — testified that the judge president was in the habit of addressing female staff as 'big girls' and 'children'.
Nkqayi, who first worked as a stenographer in Bisho before being transferred to work as Mbenenge's secretary from 2020, said the judge president also regularly commented on women's appearance.
Asked by Mbenenge's legal representative, advocate Griffiths Madonsela, whether this was 'unusual', Nkqayi replied 'he did this to everyone' and that this was merely his characteristic way of interacting with staff.
It is not clear whether 'everyone' included young men or men who worked under Mbenenge in the division.
No questions
Late on Tuesday, after the announcement by advocate Muzi Sikhakhane that his client, Mbenenge, would be testifying after evidence by two court secretaries, the tribunal chairperson, retired Gauteng judge president Bernard Ngoepe, ruled there would be no cross-examination of Nkqayi by Mengo's legal team.
Mbenenge has not denied the relationship with Mengo and has insisted it was consensual.
However, this week renowned gender-based violence and sexual harassment expert Lisa Vetten testified as an expert witness and concluded from the 47 conversations that had taken place that the relationship had been coercive and unwanted.
Mbenenge, she said, had not been able to take 'no' for an answer. Later, Sikhakhane suggested that Vetten had been unable to grasp the isiXhosa 'cultural' nature of the judge president's 'courting'.
Vetten had earlier testified that labour laws governing the workplace sought precisely to prevent the kind of blurring of boundaries between those in power and those who were not.
She said that should a relationship occur within a workplace, it had to be declared so as to prevent a spiralling of possible resentments among other employees with regard to favouritism and various other perks.
Nkqayi's surprise admission that she had left the division as she had feared for her mental health resulted in Ngoepe calling for a break and for the evidence leader, Salomé Scheepers, to consult with Mengo and Mbenenge's teams.
'Girls and their moods'
On Wednesday, the tribunal heard that Nkqayi was in her office one morning when a Ms Gugushe, also a secretary, popped in around teatime. Mbenenge exited his office and stood in the doorway interlinking their offices.
'Ms Mengo was passing by whilst the judge president was having a conversation with Ms Gugushe, asking how she was.'
Mengo had passed by and greeted them all, but Mbenenge called her back.
'He said to her, 'What is this, big girl? Why are you wearing a curtain today?' and he went further to say, 'Do you see how other children are, they are dressed well.''
The judge president had been referring to Nkqayi and Gugushe.
Missing evidence
Earlier in the year, the tribunal heard that crucial CCTV footage, which would back the claim by Mengo that Mbenenge had summoned her to his office on 15 November 2022 and had asked her for oral sex, had gone missing.
Prabagaran Naidoo, the director of facilities and security at the Office of the Chief Justice, previously entered the footage into the tribunal. He was unable to explain, however, how footage from the date that Mengo claimed Mbenenge had 'pointed to his erection in his trousers' was missing.
Naidoo testified that he had been contacted by the Mthatha court manager in either November or December 2022 and had been told that 'a senior judge' had requested to view the CCTV footage.
This he had been allowed to do by the control room operator.
However, as it might be required in future, Naidoo instructed that the footage be downloaded onto a computer hard drive before it was overwritten.
It was almost a year later, in October 2023, that he had instructed this to be transferred to a memory stick and couriered to his office. The memory stick contained footage from 14 and 16 November, but that of 15 November was 'missing'.
Asked by Mengo's legal representative, advocate Nasreen Rajab-Budlender, what had happened to the 15 November footage, Naidoo replied: 'I can't say.'
Rajab-Budlender, at the time, was on record as saying that the judge who had viewed the footage was Bantubonke Tokota, who had made a statement about this.
'Judge Tokota says he viewed footage from 14 and 15 November. He said there was nothing worth mentioning about the 14th because it had nothing to do with the rumours regarding the 15th.
'On the 15th, he saw Mbenenge arrive and leave chambers with his bag. He said there was no sign of Mengo entering his chambers. But we have not seen that today,' she said.
Judge Tokota had not followed protocol in requesting access to the footage through the court manager, Naidoo confirmed.
The tribunal continues. DM
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Controversy unfolds in sexual harassment tribunal involving Judge President Selby Mbenenge
Unathi Sogoni, a stenographer at the Makhanda High Court and former friend of sexual harassment complainant Andiswa Mengo, was the third witness brought by Judge President Selby Mbenenge's counsel. Image: Supplied /Judicial Conduct Tribunal Controversy appeared to be the launching point before the third witness in the sexual harassment tribunal hearing against Judge President Selby Mbenenge continued on Friday. Unathi Sogoni, a stenographer at the Makhanda High Court and a former friend of complainant Andiswa Mengo, is the third witness brought by Mbenenge's counsel. Before she could start her testimony, advocate Griffiths Madonsela asked the permission of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal chairperson - retired judge Bernard Ngoepe - to deal with a matter separate from the merits of Mengo's case before the Tribunal. Ngoepe and the panel dealt with the issue related to an incident on June 2, where Mengo received death threats. Last month, Mengo received a handwritten note left at her desk at court on Friday, in which it was said, 'a bullet is waiting for you'. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ngoepe shot down Mbenenge's counsel's attempt to lead evidence or introduce elements to the tribunal regarding the June incident. Mengo has levelled allegations of sexual harassment against Mbenenge, which include WhatsApp conversations and untoward face-to-face commentary and interactions. On Friday, arguing for the testimony of Sogoni to be heard, Madonsela submitted that the witness's evidence is relevant and he intended to lead her evidence in respect solely on the aspect of power relationships between judges and secretaries. He attributed the calling of Sogoni as a witness due to the previous witness, Lisa Vetten, 'being called very late in the day'. 'When all other witnesses had already testified, (then) her summary was only provided to us. We had no way of knowing that the issue of power relations would arise. Nowhere, any time before did the complainant testify… so we could not have put that version,' argued Madonsela. Prudently asked for clarity by the panel if power dynamics were the only issue that Sogoni would be led on, Madonsela responded in the affirmative. Evidence leader Salome Scheepers, however, objected to this, saying that the paragraphs Madonsela said he intended to canvass evidence on are irrelevant. 'I am of the view that it is not relevant. These lines here are completely different from what the case is before us. It's not placed before us here that the complainant is a seducer. Nothing like that was ever led or put to the complainant,' said Scheepers. In part echoing the objection, advocate Nasreen Rajab-Budlender for Mengo, said the over-simplification of Vetten's evidence was 'concerning'. 'Vetten is an expert on gender. Sogoni is not an expert. She is not an expert on gender, she is not an expert on power imbalance. This panel does not need to know about power dynamics from someone who we know has a fractious relationship with the complainant. 'I submit that you have already heard evidence that deals with power imbalance, and you dealt with that. You heard that the respondent's concern was to place evidence before this tribunal that concerned the relationships between judges and secretaries. You already had three witnesses come and tell you about that, who are actually secretaries. Sogoni is not a secretary; she is a stenographer,' said Rajab-Budlender. She further argued that if Mengo were to be recalled, as was suggested, Rajab-Budlender said she held the opinion that there were many times she felt that Mengo should be recalled. 'There were many things that were not put to the complainant, and if this complainant is recalled, then I submit that she must be asked about all of those things and she must be given an opportunity to contradict that,' said Rajab-Budlender.
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Mbenenge tribunal — expert explains emoji code origin, but not human interpretation
The alternative and deeper meanings humans attribute to emojis were explored at the Judicial Conduct Tribunal hearing for Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge on Thursday. When forensic, legal and linguistic expert Dr Zakeera Docrat testified at the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge in May, her qualifications – a BA Hons (cum laude), a LLB MA (cum laude) and a PHD from Rhodes – were vigorously interrogated by Mbenenge's legal team. At stake that day was the interpretation of emojis sent between Mbenenge and Andiswa Mengo, a court secretary, in a series of messages between June 2021 and November 2022. The 64-year-old Mbenenge has not denied the 'relationship' with Mengo and has remained insistent it was consensual. Tribunal president, retired Judge Bernard Ngoepe, has opened a new frontier during this landmark inquisitorial process, including the surgical excavation of the semiotics (meaning) of emojis used by both parties in this matter. In September 2023, a three-judge panel of the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) ruled that there was a prima facie case to be made of gross misconduct against Mbenenge, which, if confirmed, could lead to impeachment. Mengo, 41, lodged the complaint with the JSC in January 2o23. Mbenenge was placed on special leave. The tribunal investigation began in January this year. The communications between the two consisted of WhatsApps using emojis, photographs (some of which were deleted), as well as communication in isiXhosa. When is a peach a peach? When is a peach a peach and an eggplant an eggplant? What does the ear with the hearing aid mean, or the dripping syringe? Back in May, advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, representing Mbenenge, seemed surprised to learn late into her expert testimony that Docrat spoke isiXhosa fluently and was thus able to read and understand the messages she was asked to testify on. Sikhakhane had told Docrat that his team planned to bring their own expert. And so on Wednesday, Dr Vincent Mello, who has a doctorate from Unisa and is a member of the Unicode Consortium, which aims to standardise emoji coding, testified. He said he was an 'independent' operator who worked for various companies, which he declined to name. Unicode, Mello told the tribunal, is what enables a device to select from around 3,600 emojis, and their code, for messaging platforms to facilitate quicker communication. How deep is your love? If Docrat's evidence to the tribunal was 3D in depth, scope and nature, Mello's expertise was code-deep, bottom floor – looking at the architecture that holds the code. Docrat had testified that Mbenenge's use of a banana, peach, eggplant and dripping syringe emojis had 'sexual connotations' and had indicated that he had wanted to be intimate with her. 'This was not a discussion about vegetables,' she replied at some point, concerning the peaches and eggplants. Docrat testified that Mbenenge's advances were, in her opinion, unwanted, and Mengo's responses – often featuring 'hysterical laughing' and 'embarrassed monkey' emojis – were because she did not know how else to react, as he was her boss. Mechanical code Mello methodically and mechanically went through the evidence he had prepared, addressing the technological architectural code involved. He informed the tribunal that he also used Emojipedia as a resource. 'When you type the word 'running', for instance, you will be given the option of choosing an emoji of someone depicted as running,' he said. Later, during cross-examination by evidence leader advocate Salomé Scheepers, Mello was asked to do exactly this on a phone other than his own. When the emoji failed to reflect, he agreed that not all applications or versions allowed for this. He said he had observed the use of emojis on 'approximately' 189 occasions in this matter, including 'rolling on the floor laughing', the 'see no evil monkey', the 'winking face', 'the thinking face', 'the flushed face', 'winking face with tongue', 'squinting face with tongue', 'eyes', 'folded arms', 'raising hands', 'crossed fingers', 'face palm', 'smiling face with halo'… on and on he went, counting each time Mbenenge or Mengo used one. He said Mbenenge had used emojis 97 times while Mengo had done so 69 times. When asked about the peach and the eggplant, which he had not yet highlighted, he replied, 'The peach would be the bum and the eggplant the male private part.' This kind of talk is mild considering some the descriptions that have been put before the tribunal, including that Mbenenge had allegedly also pointed to his erect penis in his trousers on one occasion, allegedly saying, 'You want to suck it?' Mello agreed that he could not testify on the deeper meaning people attached to standardised emojis and that he did not have any forensic legal linguistic expertise to do so. He also acknowledged that he had not published any research that had been peer-reviewed, that anyone could join the Emoji Consortium, and all they had to do was pay a membership fee. He also told the tribunal that he conducted his research out of interest in this bold new technological frontier.
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Five Truths in Lawfare and the Weaponisation of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of Judge President Selby Mbenenge
Gillian Schutte unpacks the political, epistemic, and ideological weaponisation of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of Judge President Selby Mbenenge. Image: IOL At a moment when South Africa finds itself midway through a soft coup engineered by elements within the GNU in alignment with Anglo-American geopolitical interests, and amid an intensified ideological war against Black epistemology and radical thought, Judge President Selby Mbenenge's Judicial Conduct Tribunal must be rigorously interrogated through a decolonial lens rather than through liberal spectacle. Marianne Thamm's characterisation in Daily Maverick - an intellectual title fight between "old patriarchs" and a gender-based violence expert - typifies precisely this liberal sock puppet journalism: sensationalist, reductive, and politically calculated. GroundUp had already set the ideological stage with its headline: "Expert defends sexual harassment finding against Judge President Mbenenge," published prematurely on the Tribunal's second morning. Its intent was clear: to shape public perception through donor-aligned feminist frameworks, implicitly dismissing African jurisprudence as regressive patriarchal relic. Critical analysis reveals deeper political dynamics hidden beneath this liberal narrative, which deliberately obscured why Lisa Vetten's partial, selectively translated testimony was nonetheless elevated as authoritative. Rather than examining the substantial influence of Western-aligned donors – USAID, Global Fund, NACOSA, Open Society, Ford Foundation, and the EU – in shaping Vetten's frameworks, GroundUp presented her findings as objectively neutral. Yet these donor bodies consistently privilege gender analyses neatly aligned with Western liberal policy prescriptions, marginalising radical feminist critiques that connect gender violence to structural inequality, capitalist extraction, and historical colonial violence. GroundUp's premature pronouncement was neither neutral nor coincidental. It aimed to attack African epistemic sovereignty, prevent critical inquiry, and consolidate ideological alignment with donor interests. This is exactly why we need to look beneath this carefully managed media spectacle – because it is there that lie five distinct truths, each deserving rigorous engagement without collapsing one into the other. Truth One: Andiswa Mengo's Testimony Court secretary Andiswa Mengo's testimony described a progression in communication from professional engagement to increasingly personal and late-night messages from Judge Mbenenge, culminating in the receipt of a photograph she experienced as invasive and inappropriate. Her account of discomfort, vulnerability, and disrupted professional dignity must be taken seriously. To dismiss her truth would be to re-enact the very violence that silences complainants across patriarchal institutions. However, belief in survivors must not be conflated with the abandonment of procedural integrity. Belief is not a substitute for evidence; it is a starting point for serious inquiry. Her version must be examined within a context that resists voyeuristic credulity or ideological utility. It must be subject to the same rigour expected of any legal process – through full context, linguistic nuance, and evidentiary completeness – not partial snippets or selective framing that serve to confirm media narratives or topple a judge without due process. In a case saturated with political and ideological stakes, it is all the more necessary to hold the space where belief and scrutiny coexist without collapsing one into the other. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Truth Two: Lisa Vetten's Donor-Aligned Authority Lisa Vetten's authority must be situated within the geopolitical architecture that funds and frames it. Her career has unfolded through institutions tethered to Washington's ideological and strategic interests – from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, to Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre, and into policy-shaping roles within USAID and Global Fund programmes. Her expertise, while academically rigorous, operates within frameworks designed by and for liberal feminism's global administrators. These frameworks privilege technocratic solutions, de-link gendered violence from histories of racial capitalism and imperial dispossession, and systematically displace radical or decolonial feminist theory. The result is an epistemic narrowing in which donor-approved metrics define legitimacy, while anti-imperial perspectives are dismissed as ideological excess. Vetten's position in the Tribunal was not one of detached expertise, but of ideological utility. Her testimony aligned seamlessly with the narrative preferences of the liberal media ecosystem. She is not an impartial observer; she is a functionary of a wider donor apparatus that has, historically and presently, advanced regime change under the cover of gender justice. In this context, she does not simply speak – she is deployed. Truth Three: Judge Mbenenge's Autonomy as Symbolic Threat Judge Selby Mbenenge, should allegations against him be substantiated, must indeed be held accountable through rigorous and impartial processes. Yet critically analysed, his autonomy as a senior Black jurist operating beyond the influence of donor-funded civil society circuits represents a clear ideological threat to liberal hegemony. At a moment when the GNU, aligned closely with Western geopolitical interests, is methodically purging judicial and institutional spaces of voices that resist neoliberal conformity, Mbenenge's independent authority marks him as a strategic target for regime-change actors intent on reshaping South Africa's judiciary into compliance with Western standards and expectations. None of which pleads for his innocence or his guilt – it is just an undeniable truth. Truth Four: Muzi Sikhakhane's Decolonial Marginalisation Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane's systematic marginalisation is rooted directly in his explicit critique of South Africa's constitutional order as structurally colonial and protective of entrenched economic and racial interests. Through his legal advocacy for former President Jacob Zuma – most notably at the Zondo Commission (August 2018, July 2019) and the Constitutional Court contempt proceedings (March 2021) – Sikhakhane consistently invoked Fanonian/Bikoian analysis, exposing liberal constitutionalism as a guardian of white capital and colonial continuity. Following these interventions, he became the target of sustained vilification in liberal media, deliberately cast as reactionary, chauvinistic, and intellectually irrelevant. This orchestrated character assassination by donor-aligned media and NGOs seeks to erase Sikhakhane precisely because he embodies a formidable ideological threat: an articulate and influential African intellectual whose arguments resonate widely with younger generations and independent African thinkers. His attempted erasure thus represents a strategic manoeuvre within the broader regime-change machinery, designed to silence inconvenient native voices that openly challenge neoliberal hegemony and advocate for authentic African jurisprudential sovereignty. Truth Five: The Donor-Media Ecosystem's Geopolitical Agenda GroundUp, Daily Maverick, News24, and amaBhungane operate within an interconnected media ecosystem sustained by powerful donor networks including Open Society Foundations, Luminate (Pierre Omidyar's so-called democracy franchise), the Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, and USAID-linked programmes. These institutions have long histories of advancing soft-power agendas under the guise of civil society strengthening. Between 2016 and 2018, this ecosystem mobilised a highly selective anti-corruption narrative to delegitimise the Zuma administration, executing what increasingly appears to have been a donor-orchestrated regime-change operation. The strategic use of corruption discourse under the banner of constitutional defence allowed donor media and NGO actors to entrench liberal hegemony while masking deeper geopolitical interests. This apparatus has always focused on gender discourse, deploying feminist rhetoric selectively to neutralise radical Black intellectuals and disrupt decolonial mobilisation. This pattern was evident during the Rhodes Must Fall and Fees Must Fall uprisings, where the sudden infiltration of US-backed think tanks and NGO intermediaries – in quiet collaboration with elements of Luthuli House – corresponded with a wave of allegations targeting radical Black male leaders. The frequency with which sexual misconduct and rape claims were deployed against prominent and outspoken figures during these movements, often without full due process, raises serious questions about the weaponisation of gender justice as a tool of ideological warfare. While the reality of gender-based violence must never be denied or trivialised, the strategic pattern of deploying such allegations to fragment movements and remove influential dissenters cannot be ignored. Historically, such tactics echo well-worn counterinsurgency strategies refined by institutions like the CIA, where sexual deviance is projected onto Black men to discredit liberation politics and fracture collective organising. This weaponisation relies on the deeply embedded colonial mythos of Black male hypersexuality and danger, allowing liberal institutions to claim moral high ground while engaging in epistemic violence. What appears on the surface as progressive gender advocacy functions as a disciplinary apparatus – punishing those who openly articulate a radical African vision beyond the bounds of donor-sanctioned politics. These five truths stand simultaneously. They are not sequential. They are not hierarchical. They coexist in tension, contradiction, and convergence – as all living truths must. Each exposes a facet of the political, epistemic, and affective dimensions of the case, and none can be collapsed into the other without enacting a form of violence. Yet collapsing truths is precisely the logic of liberal hegemony and the strategic machinery behind donor-aligned think tank discourse. It is their habit to invoke whataboutism when challenged, to flatten complexity into binary moral frames, and to present their narrative as the only legitimate one – thereby rendering all competing epistemes illegible or deviant. This is the logic of control. It is precisely in this context that the five truths around the Mbenenge Tribunal must be held in open dialectic. Mengo's experience is hers and must be addressed with seriousness. Vetten's donor-aligned authority cannot be excused from critical scrutiny. Mbenenge's symbolic threat to donor-managed Black representation is undeniable. Sikhakhane's erasure as a decolonial jurist is politically motivated. And the liberal media's choreography in service of soft regime-change agendas is a historical pattern. To ignore any one of these truths is to enable the ideological capture of justice under the pretence of neutrality. Procedurally, the Tribunal exposed the fragility of the expert testimony used to publicly frame the case. Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane's cross-examination of Lisa Vetten revealed that her analysis rested on partial evidence, translated and summarised through a legal filter that omitted linguistic and cultural context. Crucial annexures were absent. Vetten had not consulted the Tribunal's cultural-linguistics assessor, despite the case hinging on meaning and tone communicated in isiXhosa. Her findings were presented as conclusive without the primary data being fully explored. Chairperson Judge President Bernard Ngoepe's order to admit the full isiXhosa WhatsApp exchanges into the record was a tacit acknowledgment of these procedural gaps – gaps that GroundUp and its media allies had already sealed shut with a premature headline designed to foreclose complexity and manufacture consent. This moment, then, is not only about what happened between two individuals. It is about whose frameworks we are allowed to believe, whose voices are authorised, and whose truths are strategically denied. It is about how knowledge is managed, contained, and weaponised. And it is about whether South Africa can withstand the growing grip of liberal epistemic capture disguised as gender justice, or whether it will open a path toward decolonial clarity, where multiple truths can breathe without one being used to suffocate the rest. As for Thamm's increasingly degenerate journalism, in which she has cast the Tribunal as an 'intellectual heavyweight title fight between the Old Patriarchs and the Gender-Based Violence Expert,' – is not worthy of anything more than the derision we reserve for mercenaries fighting in service of empire. Her reductionism flattens a complex and politically charged legal encounter into a tired has-been morality play. Far from being a helpless woman pitted against patriarchal power, the expert witness in this case is ideologically armed and institutionally weaponised. The case cannot be read through the paternalism of liberal gender tropes. It demands to be read through the fresh lens of decolonial thought and praxis. And this case is not simply about personal conduct. It is about ideological warfare. It is about who gets to speak, who is erased, and what forms of knowing are cast as either legitimate or deviant. More than ever we are witnessing an all-out assault on radical Black thought, African jurisprudence, and decolonial critique under the sanitised banner of human rights and democracy. The interest shown in this case by donor-funded media and NGO actors must be interrogated. It bears the familiar markings of regime-change politics: rooting out those who threaten liberal orthodoxy, targeting those whose authority emerges beyond the limits of civil society funding pipelines. The soft coup unfolding within the GNU has ideological foot soldiers in law, media and academia. Their project is to purge the judiciary, academia, and political thought of any element that does not conform to Western standards of civility and containment. What we are witnessing, then, is not justice – but ideological capture. Whether South Africa can resist this and re-centre African epistemology remains the question. What is clear is that the machinery of liberal capture is always in motion – and it speaks with one voice. * You can read Gillian's academic analysis here: The Erotics of Power, the Semantics of Guilt: A Decolonial Disruption of South African Legal Discourse * Gillian Schutte is a South African writer, filmmaker and social critic. She writes on decoloniality, media and political resistance across the Global South. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
