Latest news with #Foto24
Mail & Guardian
06-05-2025
- Mail & Guardian
Tribunal hears forensic proof of WhatsApp communication in Mbenenge sexual harassment case
Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge. (Nelius Rademan/ Foto24/Gallo Images) The Judicial Conduct Tribunal resumed its inquiry into Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge on Monday, with damning testimony from a digital forensic expert confirming phone-based communication between the judge and his accuser, court secretary Andiswa Mengo. Mbenenge is accused of sexually harassing Mengo, who works at the Makhanda high court. She alleges both in-person advances and electronic harassment, including sexually explicit WhatsApp messages sent by the judge. Monday's hearing marked the continuation of She told the tribunal the power imbalance between her and Mbenenge's legal team has Digital forensic specialist Francois Moller told the tribunal he had analysed two cellphones — one belonging to Mbenenge and the other to Mengo. He confirmed the existence of contact between the two, saying Mbenenge had saved her number as 'Andy Mengo' while she had stored his as 'JP' — standing for judge president. Moller noted that the actual WhatsApp messages could not be retrieved from the devices using the numbers provided. Mengo's WhatsApp account was not linked to the SIM card in the Samsung A12 she had submitted for analysis. Moller speculated that she had used an older number retained for WhatsApp access — a method he's seen in criminal investigations to evade detection by switching SIM cards while maintaining the app over wi-fi. He confirmed that Mengo's phone contained 144 screenshots, with metadata showing the first batch was captured in July 2023 and the last in September 2024. Moller compiled a second forensic report running to 855 pages based on WhatsApp data extracted from Mengo's separate account, indicating a substantial volume of exchanges with Mbenenge. Brenda Madumise, director of Wise4Afrika, cautioned against reducing the tribunal's scope to a technical analysis of digital records. 'The exchanges have already been established. What's important is determining at what point the complainant felt uncomfortable,' she told the Mail & Guardian . She said the defence's argument — that the messages were consensual — seeks to deflect from the core issue of whether Mbenenge's conduct constitutes gross misconduct, a finding that could trigger impeachment proceedings. While confirming some aspects of the text exchange with the complainant, Mbenenge's legal counsel The tribunal, now in its fourth phase, will next assess the authenticity and tone of the messages before submitting a report to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The JSC will then decide whether to recommend Mbenenge's impeachment to parliament or to dismiss the complaint. Following the initial hearings in January, the 'We do not believe that in the case of Judge President Mbenenge the JSC was acting consistently with its own decade-long practice of recommending suspension immediately when a tribunal is appointed,' said Mbekezeli Benjamin, the organisation's research and advocacy officer. Benjamin said while it's too early to tell if Monday's forensic testimony weakens the complainant's case, the broader concern lies in how the JSC has handled the matter. 'Suspension isn't punitive — it's about safeguarding judicial integrity and ensuring the judge can fully respond to the allegations.' The case is the first known instance in South Africa of a judge president facing a sexual harassment inquiry. As the highest-ranking judicial officer in the Eastern Cape, Mbenenge's conduct has far-reaching implications for public trust in the judiciary. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya is Benjamin said the policy developments are positive but insufficient without consistent application. 'Efforts are ongoing to improve judicial efficiency through the National Efficiency Enhancement Committee but clearly this is not enough.' The tribunal is set to continue until 15 May, with Mbenenge expected to testify before it concludes.
The Citizen
05-05-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
Standard Bank told to pay back the money
It paid out more than R2.1m from a deceased estate to a fake executor and tried to argue that it followed proper due diligence. The court didn't buy it. Costs were awarded against the bank, not least because 'a customer has no duty to anticipate criminal activity'. Picture: Gallo Images/Foto24/Brendan Croft Standard Bank has been instructed to pay back more than R2.1 million paid to a fake executor by the name of Johan Botha, who managed to convince the bank and the Western Cape High Court master that he was the authorised executor of the estate of Constance Arnot, who passed away in August 2021. The case highlighted some astonishing vulnerabilities in a system meant to safeguard deceased estate assets. It also reaffirms the legal principle that it is the bank, not the customer, who is liable in the event money is paid out to the wrong person, particularly where negligence is concerned. In her final will from 2013, Arnot named her son-in-law James Turner as executor of her estate. On 21 September, shortly after Arnot passed away, Turner submitted the will, death certificate, and his acceptance of trust as executor to the master's office at the court. He then asked the master to issue the required letters of executorship. It was a full year later, after complaints from Turner's attorneys, that the letters of executorship were issued. What was not known to Turner at the time was that in February of 2022, the master had also issued letters of executorship to one Johan Botha. ALSO READ: Prudential authority fines Absa R10 million for FICA non-compliance Documents supplied, payment made Botha had meanwhile approached Standard Bank via email, claiming to be the executor of Arnot's estate. The bank's officer in charge of deceased estates demanded certified documents, which Botha appeared to provide, including a copy of the will where he was named as the executor. This was given further credence by stamps on the will certifying it as a certified true copy of the original. Thus satisfied, the bank proceeded to pay out funds from Arnot's account in April 2022 to Botha and another named recipient, Katherine Smuts. Turner later found out that the funds had been paid out and immediately contacted the bank to find out to whom and why the funds had been paid out, and based on what documents. A series of emails passed between Turner's attorneys and the bank, which refused to release the documents requested, claiming Botha was listed at the master's office as the executor of the estate. ALSO READ: FSCA fines African Bank R700 000 for misleading advertising [VIDEO] Bank's refusals … and suggestion The bank also claimed it could not release the requested documents on the basis that they related to a third party, which would put it in violation of the Protection of Private Information (Popi) Act. By October 2022, Turner's attorneys demanded that the bank pay the funds into the estate account. The bank refused on the grounds that it had already made payment to Botha and suggested Turner take the matter up with Botha directly. 'Only the bank can claim the funds back from Botha, not the applicant,' reads the judgment. 'This is why the bank's response to the applicant to rather liaise with Botha regarding the funds, when the latter demanded payment of the funds, was cynical to say the least. This, despite its refusal to give any information regarding Botha.' The bank claimed it followed proper procedures and verifications before transferring the funds to Botha. ALSO READ: Former customer charges Absa with perjury and defamation Matter taken to court Frustrated and determined to uphold his duty as executor, Turner took Standard Bank to court in June 2023, seeking a declaratory order that the bank's closure of Arnot's accounts and payment to Botha were unlawful, demanding the return of R2.19 million plus interest, and the disclosure of documents justifying the bank's actions. The case exposed a series of failures by Standard Bank, revealing how easily the alleged fraud had slipped through its processes. Turner argued that his case did not rely on negligence or wrongdoing by Standard Bank, but on his entitlement, as the legitimate executor, to payment from the bank. When Turner's attorneys received some of the documents supplied by the bank in its reply, they found a series of 'inconsistencies, deficiencies and abnormalities in the emails and documents emanating from Johan Botha'. They also argued that the bank and its employees were extraordinarily negligent, with no rational or reasonable basis to be satisfied with the documents supplied by Botha. ALSO READ: Smackdown for Standard Bank in home repo case Superficial check The bank's admin officer, Cindy Camp, did a superficial check – consulting the master's portal, which incorrectly reflected Botha as executor – without noticing that Botha's documents were not legitimate. 'Had Ms Camp called the telephone number shown on the portal page to confirm details she would have been in contact with the applicant, and the fraud may well have been exposed,' reads the judgment by Judge Nobahle Mangcu-Lockwood. 'Ms Camp would have had no reasonable or rational basis on which to regard Botha's scant details as adequately verified by checking it against the information shown on the Master's portal.' Mangcu-Lockwood slammed the bank's male fides (bad faith) for trying to introduce a further affidavit while still refusing to provide information requested by Turner's team. 'Pointedly, no documents were provided to [Turner] which were provided to the bank by Botha for closure of the accounts and transfer of the funds to him, and that remains the position to date,' she said. The judge rejected the bank's attempt to blame Turner for delays in securing his letters of executorship, citing case law that a customer has no duty to anticipate criminal activity. The court ruling hinged on the bank's contractual obligation, not its negligence. Its closure of Arnot's bank accounts and the payment to Botha were unlawful, and the bank was ordered to pay over the R2.1 million deceased estate to Turner. Costs were awarded against the bank. This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
