05-05-2025
Mthatha High Court officials solicit bribes to do their jobs, investigation reveals
An investigation by the Southern Africa Accountability Journalism Project has corroborated allegations of systemic corruption at the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court in Mthatha, where court officials solicit bribes – some as high as R15,000 – from attorneys to perform routine administrative functions.
Attorneys attempting to perform routine administrative functions at the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court in Mthatha allege that court officials are soliciting bribes – some as high as R15,000 – to do tasks that should be part of their normal jobs.
The allegations were first detailed in an anonymous December 2024 letter to the Eastern Cape's Acting Judge President Zamani Nhlangulela and then Acting Deputy Judge President Bantubonke Tokota.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, neither judge responded to our requests for comment, which were first sent via email on 24 March. It is unclear what their response to the December 2024 letter was, and whether they have taken action.
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya was copied in our query and her spokesperson, Lindokuhle Nkomonde, acknowledged receipt. He said the 'Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) has zero tolerance for fraud and corruption' and that it treats complaints pertaining to these 'with seriousness, urgency and sensitivity'.
He did not say, however, what the Chief Justice was doing specifically in response to the complaint against officials from the Mthatha High Court.
'We depend on all stakeholders in the fight against fraud and corruption, including the media, to act in a manner that safeguards the integrity of the processing of legitimate complaints,' he said.
Though the complaint letter was penned and sent anonymously, its contents suggest that the author has a working knowledge of the court's processes and of specific staff in key administrative roles there. It was leaked to the reporters by a judge with knowledge of the matter. Its details have not been published before today.
The letter alleges that Mthatha High Court officials demand cash bribes from attorneys for tasks that they are already paid to perform as part of their jobs.
Many of these tasks are fundamental to the legal process, and withholding them has the potential to harm people who approach the courts for relief in cases as wide ranging as contractual wrangles, wrongful dismissals, unlawful evictions, motor vehicle accidents, medical malpractice, defamation, divorce, unpaid child support or the need for a protection order in domestic abuse cases.
According to the letter, the duties being held ransom include: retrieving supposedly 'missing' case files (at a cost of R2,000 per file), allocating court dates (at a cost of up to R15,000 per date), transcribing court orders (R5,000) and expediting the taxation of legal costs (R15,000).
The letter named nine officials accused of extorting bribes. These officials work in various departments and range from junior typists to senior managers. They included the court's registrar, Babalwa Sidima.
One of the eight officials – a junior typist, named alongside Sidima – has apparently resigned and could not be traced. But, reporters sent WhatsApps and emails to the seven other officials, and asked for their responses to the allegations and to being named in the letter. None responded.
Sidima acknowledged our queries. She called to say she and her colleagues were advised not to speak to us, and referred queries to the Office of the Chief Justice.
Legal practitioners confirm the corruption
Having studied the complaint, reporters with the SA | AJP approached and interviewed 21 attorneys and advocates with regular dealings with the Mthatha High Court, where they represent clients in civil cases. Each one in turn confirmed that they are aware of the alleged racket.
'It is blatant. And it is an open secret. Everyone knows about it,' one attorney said.
Some attorneys told us that firms who likely pay bribes can be identified as those who regularly and quickly receive court dates. Well-resourced firms, they said, will pay bribes to secure an advantage in getting cases enrolled.
This allegation is also contained in the letter of complaint to the Acting Judge President, which claims that an official working in the court's Case Flow Management office 'will also favour certain firms over others based on their ability to pay them this money. That is why certain firms usually dominate the trial, motion and default rolls.'
A cursory examination of Mthatha court rolls suggests that some firms are indeed getting many more court dates than others.
We spoke to some attorneys at these firms, but nobody would admit to paying bribes, though they acknowledged that they were aware of a bribery racket operating at the court. Like the letter writer, all the attorneys we spoke to insisted on anonymity.
We understood the reticence of practitioners to be named for speaking out on the record on this issue is because of concerns they may be ostracised by their colleagues in the legal profession and even victimised by court officials with the power to withhold court dates in their matters or leave their files unattended.
Still, rich details emerged from these interviews.
One Mthatha advocate who has represented high-profile clients told us that attorneys instructing him sometimes complain that they are unable to secure dates because officials are soliciting bribes from them. He recalled one attorney who paid a bribe, only to be denied a date again.
'We were still not getting a date,' he said, suspecting that the court official in charge of allocating these dates was holding out for more money.
Another advocate recalled the despair of a small-town attorney who was instructing him. When he informed this attorney that the case was not yet ready, and that they would need to seek out a later court date, the attorney became despondent.
'Where will I get another R3,000 to pay for the allocating of the [new] date?' the advocate recalled the attorney asking.
Yet, such brazen extortion is rarely reported. A theme that emerged from our interviews is that attorneys are acutely aware of the power that corrupt officials can wield with potential negative impacts for the attorneys' respective practices if they balk at paying the bribe or choose to report it. This may well explain, too, why the author of the letter to the Judge President chose anonymity.
'People are scared of being victimised. They complain in the corridors, but never formally,' one lawyer explained.
Decades in the making, but still no action
Still, when things get bad enough, there have been instances in past years when attorneys have spoken up. The December letter says the corruption has been happening 'for some time now', but that it recently 'spiralled out of control'.
Advocates and attorneys interviewed by the Southern Africa Accountability Journalism Project (SA | AJP) reporters said that some level of corruption and bribery has been part of Mthatha court processes almost for as long as they can remember: as far back as the mid-2000s at least, said one attorney with a long history at the court. That same attorney said his colleague had been solicited for a bribe just the week prior to being interviewed by a reporter.
He recalled a specific complaint from attorneys sent to the then-acting judge president in Mthatha, Judge Zweledinga Peko. Back then, the attorneys complained the then-registrar wanted gifts of Squadron Rum before doing crucial tasks that they were already employed to perform.
At least two other attorneys we spoke to recalled the complaints about the registrar's 'rum' bribes. One also recalled a specific court official who had a penchant for stealing law books from the court's library to sell to local attorneys at a discount on the retail price. The other said the 'selling' of trial dates at Mthatha High Court has a history reaching back at least two decades.
The reporters could find no public record of action against officials, despite this.
But, some of the attorneys we interviewed held out hope that the December letter and increased awareness about corruption at the court could see the tide turning.
'Please find a way to sensitise the public that the truth about corruption has been revealed,' a senior court official implored us during an interview.
'The perpetrators will soon face the music,' the official said.
Unequal justice
Most of the cases being held hostage by allegedly corrupt officials at the Mthatha High Court relate to civil litigation: the letter referred to roles exclusively relevant to civil cases. At Mthatha the load of such cases is particularly heavy compared to other high courts in the Eastern Cape. It handles almost 40% – more than 5,000 such cases – of the province's civil case load annually. Mthatha High Court also serves the largest Eastern Cape district, OR Tambo's 1.5 million people.
The civil cases brought to court by attorneys in Mthatha often involve litigants who are among the poorest or most vulnerable people in the province.
'The rot in the system affects members of the public the most. Very often, their livelihoods depend on the orders a court must hand down,' said the advocate whose instructing attorney blamed his inability to secure trial dates on the solicitation of bribes.
An East London-based attorney agreed: 'If one party can get a date so quickly, within a couple of months when everybody else must wait for years to get a date … then that's unfair, then justice is not equitable for everybody.'
Much of the court's civil case load consists of Road Accident Fund claims. These matters can clog up the court roll and create backlogs and long delays before new cases are given court dates. The scarcity of court dates makes it perfect fodder for a corrupt trade.
'You have to pay bribes if you want to get your matters on the roll,' one attorney said, adding that a trial date in 2025 is considered unattainable – unless you pay.
'Suddenly, you see a document with a [trial] date in May. How is this possible?' he asked, implying that it could only be that a certain attorney had paid a bribe for that date.
Several people interviewed noted that junior attorneys are often used as go-betweens for bribes, to shield senior lawyers from implicating themselves.
Also, new firms are reportedly targeted more aggressively.
'They're under pressure to build a reputation and finalise cases,' one attorney said.
No response
We called, spoke or sent queries via WhatsApp and email to eight of the nine officials implicated in the anonymous letter. One of the nine had resigned and could not be traced.
Six of the eight did not respond to our emails or WhatsApp messages.
Registrar Babalwa Sidima called to say she and her colleagues were advised not to speak to us, and referred queries to the Office of the Chief Justice.
One official, Thozamile Semekazi – who was accused in the letter of soliciting bribes for filing documents in the court – initially promised to provide names of corrupt colleagues but failed to follow through. When questioned about his own role, he said: 'Me? I'm shocked… I didn't even know there was an issue of bribes.'
Nkomonde, the spokesperson for the Office of the Chief Justice, was invited last week to reconsider his original response to queries, in which he failed to say anything specific about how the Office of the Chief Justice was dealing with the complaints against Mthatha High Court officials.
He responded: 'Kindly make use (of) the response previously provided.' DM
