Latest news with #JudicialServiceCommission
IOL News
6 days ago
- Politics
- IOL News
Ramaphosa's Police Corruption Inquiry: Will This One Deliver?
President Cyril Ramaphosa has announced a new judicial commission to investigate deep-rooted dysfunction within the police. Will this inquiry finally uncover the truth and lead to meaningful change? Image: GCIS When President Cyril Ramaphosa announced yet another judicial commission this time to investigate deep-rooted dysfunction within the police the question wasn't whether the truth would emerge. It was whether anything would change. We've been here before. The Zondo Commission laid bare the full extent of state capture, naming names, exposing networks, and recommending sweeping reforms. Yet years later, South Africans are still asking: How far have we come in implementing those recommendations? Why are so many still waiting for justice, restitution, or real reform? Now, following bombshell revelations by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi who courageously exposed rot, political interference, and operational decay at SAPS's heart we're again placing hope in a judicial commission. But hard questions demand answers. Will this be another toothless inquiry, destined to produce a glossy report and little else? Will Mkhwanazi be supported or scapegoated? Will the public be engaged or merely placated? Most importantly: What will make this commission succeed where so many have failed? Judicial commissions have become our default crisis response. From ethics violations to public trust deficits, policymakers reflexively turn to them as proof of action. Yet government shelves already groan under dust covered reports that achieved little beyond symbolism. The issue isn't whether we need judicial commissions, whether we'll finally design ones built to deliver results rather than rhetoric. The first fatal flaw plaguing most commissions is what I call the accountability paradox: they're granted impressive investigative powers but no enforcement muscle. They excel at exposing problems less so at fixing them. Truly effective commissions transcend "fact-finding" missions to wield binding powers that compel reform. South Africa's own Judicial Service Commission, established in 1994, exemplifies this approach. Beyond overseeing judicial appointments, it enforces ethical conduct through transparent processes public interviews, inclusive representation that helped rebuild trust in our post-apartheid judiciary. Contrast this with advisory only commissions, which quickly become political footballs: praised by supporters, dismissed by opponents, and ultimately relegated to ceremonial irrelevance. Political independence isn't a luxury it's an existential requirement. Across the globe, commissioners have been dismissed or marginalized when their findings threatened powerful interests. South Africa cannot afford this pattern. Genuine independence demands three non-negotiables: Fixed tenure with narrow removal criteria. Commissioners should face dismissal only for serious misconduct or incapacity, requiring supermajority votes or judicial review never political convenience. Secure, dedicated funding. Like courts themselves, commissions must be shielded from budgetary manipulation. Multi-year funding commitments prevent political retaliation through fiscal strangulation. Balanced, credible composition. Legal insiders alone cannot carry reform's burden. The most effective commissions blend judges, attorneys, scholars, and informed public voices in carefully calibrated proportions that reflect society's diversity while maintaining professional credibility. Too many commissions operate behind coverings of secrecy, undermining the very trust they aim to rebuild. In our digital age, opacity isn't just outdated, it's counterproductive to reform goals. Successful commissions embrace radical transparency through: Open hearings where confidentiality permits, inviting public observation Real-time publication of commission activities, findings, and rationales Accessible communication that translates legal complexity into public understanding Proactive engagement with communities, not just legal elites This transparency doesn't compromise integrity, strengthens legitimacy by demonstrating accountability in action. Even visionary recommendations prove worthless without robust follow-through. Reform graveyards overflow with brilliant ideas that never escaped paper. To avoid this fate, effective commissions must: Establish statutory timelines. Vague recommendations enable indefinite delay. Specific deadlines and milestones create pressure for action while enabling progress measurement. Maintain post-report oversight. Commissions shouldn't dissolve upon publication; they should retain monitoring authority to track implementation and publicly highlight foot-dragging. Secure early stakeholder buy-in. Judges, court administrators, civil society, and affected communities should participate from inception, building implementation coalitions rather than resistance movements. Include resource allocation plans. Proposals without funding mechanisms remain wishful thinking. Successful commissions provide detailed cost analyses and financing strategies as integral recommendation components. Judicial commissions don't operate in political vacuums. Effective reform requires understanding of the political ecosystem, not surrendering to it. Strategic considerations include: Cross-party leadership. Single-party commissions face inevitable credibility challenges. Bipartisan endorsement creates broader political investment in success. Thoughtful pacing. While comprehensive reform may be ideal, incremental progress often proves more sustainable than revolutionary proposals triggering massive political backlash. Coalition building. Courts serve everyone. Successful commissions cultivate support extending beyond traditional legal circles to include business groups, civil rights organizations, and other stakeholders invested in judicial effectiveness. Evidence shows that transformative judicial commissions share critical characteristics distinguishing them from failed counterparts: They possess clear mandates with measurable objectives rather than aspirational vagueness. They maintain operational independence through structural protections, not ceremonial declarations. They embrace transparency as a strategy, not liability. They design enforcement mechanisms from the outset rather than hoping for voluntary compliance. Most crucially, they understand that judicial reform ultimately concerns public trust. In an era of declining institutional confidence, commissions that enhance rather than undermine faith in courts serve democracy's fundamental needs. South Africa doesn't lack judicial reform ideas. What's missing is the resolve to implement what experience teaches works. Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi's revelations present both crisis and opportunity. His courage in exposing institutional decay deserves support, not scapegoating. The commission investigating his allegations must be structured for success, not designed for bureaucratic theater. This moment demands more than good intentions. It requires structural clarity, political courage, and unwavering commitment to transparency and public interest. The blueprint for commission success exists, drawn from both our own experience and the best international practices. The only remaining question is whether we possess wisdom and the will to follow it. The stakes couldn't be higher. Public trust in our institutions hangs in the balance. We can continue the cycle of well-intentioned commissions producing impressive reports that gather dust, or we can finally build one designed to deliver the accountability and reform our democracy desperately democracy. Nyaniso Qwesha
TimesLIVE
10-07-2025
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
Chief justice asks Mkhwanazi and Masemola to back up allegations
The acting secretary-general of the Office of the Chief Justice has officially requested national police commissioner Gen Fannie Masemola and KwaZulu-Natal provincial commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi to submit evidence supporting the allegations made by Mkhwanazi on Sunday. Mkhwanazi was also urged to lodge formal complaints with the Judicial Service Commission and/or the Magistrates' Commission, where appropriate. Chief justice Mandisa Maya, said the judiciary stands firm in its commitment to accountability and the rule of law. 'If any person, including Lt Gen Mkhwanazi, has credible evidence of unlawful or unethical conduct committed by a member of the judiciary, they are urged to report such matters to the legally mandated structures of the state. Unsubstantiated allegations, however, regrettably undermine the administration of justice and weaken public trust in our institutions, which are essential to upholding our constitutional democracy,' Maya said. Mkhwanazi made damning allegations against police minister Senzo Mchunu on Sunday. He accused the minister of interfering with police investigations and of being an associate of people with questionable characters. He claimed that in 2024, a request was received from the Gauteng Organised Crime Investigation Unit for help in dismantling an organised crime syndicate operating across the country and controlled from Gauteng. Investigations revealed that the syndicate involved politicians, members of law enforcement (including SAPS, metro police and correctional services), prosecutors and members of the judiciary and was being controlled by a drug cartel in collaboration with certain businesspeople. Reacting to the allegations, the judiciary said it noted the remarks with serious concern. 'Such claims, made without substantiation, are extremely damaging to public confidence in the independence and integrity of our courts — a fundamental pillar of our constitutional democracy,' the Office of the Chief Justice said in a statement. The office said judicial officers were bound by the judicial oath or solemn affirmation of office to uphold and protect the constitution and the human rights entrenched in it, and to administer justice to all people alike without fear, favour or prejudice, as per the constitution and the law. 'As such, any suggestion of impropriety within the judiciary is treated with the utmost gravity. These bodies are constitutionally and statutorily mandated to investigate complaints against judicial officers. The JSC derives its authority from Section 178 of the constitution, read with the Judicial Service Commission Act, 1994 (Act 9 of 1994). Furthermore, the Magistrates Commission operates under the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act 90 of 1993). Both institutions have well-established mechanisms to address allegations of misconduct, ensuring due process and fairness,' reads the statement. Reaffirming its dedication to justice, transparency and the principles enshrined in the constitution, the Office of the Chief Justice said should any judicial officer be found to have acted unlawfully or unethically, appropriate action must be taken without hesitation.
Daily Maverick
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
It wasn't about power, ‘it was a conversation between two adults', Mbenenge tells hearing
Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge says he believes judges are not subject to labour laws or employee workplace relations regulations. Proceedings at the Judicial Conduct hearing into allegations of sexual harassment against Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge were briefly disrupted before lunch on Wednesday, 9 July by placard-waving protesters. They were swiftly removed. The protesters are evidence of the widespread interest and anger surrounding this seminal South African case dealing with modern power relations in the workplace and how these affect unwanted approaches of a personal nature. Explaining the short interruption, tribunal chair, retired Judge Bernard Ngoepe, said while the proceedings were open to anyone from the public, 'you may not perform on this stage'. At the core of this complaint of sexual harassment lodged against the Judge President with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) by court secretary Andiswa Mengo is whether the unequal power relations in the matter are relevant. Mbenenge has denied the charges and has maintained that the contact with Mengo was consensual. Late on Tuesday evening, during cross-examination by evidence leader advocate Salomé Scheepers, Mbenenge revealed to the panel his view that judges were not subject to the country's labour and workplace employee relations laws. 'I see it my way' In Mbenenge's mind, the fact that he is one of the most senior judges in the division and its head, had no effect on how he moved through life or the world, or how he was perceived by others, he told the tribunal on Wednesday. Judges, he said, were appointed by the President after recommendations by the JSC. Salaries are paid from the National Revenue Fund, which is separate from the Department of Justice. As independent operatives, they were therefore not subject to the ordinary rules of the workplace. However, the tribunal has been reminded, this does not give Mbenenge a status above other citizens of the country, as the Constitution upholds the rights of all. By way of example, Mbenenge set out to explain an occasion when he felt his status had played no role. This was when he had tried to reconcile a court manager who had allegedly insulted the complainant, Mengo. In that instance, he said, he had not acted as a judge, but as a 'social human'. 'Unless there is a theory or a notion that judge presidents should only talk to other JPs, this flies in the face of social reality.' Mbenenge added, 'even if I had been a watchman, I would have intervened in any matter where there was conflict between two people in a workplace.' While it is highly likely that Mbenenge has never been a watchman, it appears his intact self-esteem enabled him to project, into the mind of a 'watchman', a confident and level-headed mediator such as himself. When it came to how Mengo might have read or interpreted Mbenenge's behaviour differently, as suggested by Scheepers, Mbenenge's responses became a pattern through the morning: 'That is your interpretation. I see it my way. Or I see it differently.' In January, Mengo testified that she had to show respect towards Mbenenge – this was after he had first begun WhatsApping her in June 2021 after a personal interaction in the workplace. 'I have to respect him as someone who is also in charge. Even the manner in which I responded to him, I had to be very cautious,' Mengo testified. Scheepers said this, as well as the fact that Mengo had lodged a complaint of sexual harassment (at great personal cost to both parties, it turns out), was evidence of how she perceived the JP's advances differently. Mbenenge replied to Scheepers: 'So be it. What I need to say is simply that she might harbour this understanding, but I never understood it that way. 'I never imposed myself on her. You don't deal with people from the perspective that 'you know I am a JP'. When I was conversing with the complainant, and remember I am a top lawyer, according to some and the media understanding, when I was chatting with her I was being a social being.' To which Scheepers shot back, 'but you are the Judge President! You do not have to impose that on her. She knew that!' Mbenenge replied, 'I never imposed myself as a JP. The conversation was not between a JP and a junior staff member. I was simply a social being when talking to her in this instance. It was a conversation between two adults…'. Multi-tasking while pummeling Scheepers began her cross-examination late on Tuesday in a pugnacious mood which continued throughout Wednesday as she drilled down into uncomfortable territory. At several points, Mbenenge objected to her 'tone'. This was after complaining earlier in the week about the quality of her work and complaining often that he was being treated as someone 'guilty until proven innocent'. The JP was also angered when he believed that Scheepers was not focusing exclusively on him while he gave evidence or provided replies to questions. He told Judge Ngoepe that he objected to her side consultations with Mengo's counsel, advocate Nasreen Rajab-Budlender. Mbenenge stated he had found this 'disrespectful', at which point Ngoepe intervened, saying that 'advocate Scheepers does not mean disrespect. Perhaps a problem will arise only when she says you need to repeat your answer, then that could be the point. 'But if she feels she can manage to pick up a word or two and still be receptive to your answer, it should not be a problem. The weight of the matter Judge Ngoepe, as chair of the tribunal, has clearly understood the enormous significance of this matter and has tried to navigate this as an older man and retired judge, allowing evidence by gender expert, Lisa Vetten, which Mbenenge's legal team, advocates Musi Sikhakhane and Griffiths Madonsela, had sought to have excluded. When Mbenenge lashed out on Wednesday, saying the matter had rendered him almost a 'pariah' who would never again be invited to give lectures at illustrious universities such as Fort Hare as a result of the stigma, Ngoepe again intervened in even tones to calm him: 'No matter the court of public opinion, in this tribunal there is no point of departure which says the person is guilty, otherwise the proceedings would be a charade. 'Otherwise the outcome would have been determined already. Irrespective of public opinion, irrespective of what everybody thinks… We are going to decide this case on the facts before us and in terms of the law, irrespective of who said what.' Mbenenge said he was not attacking the tribunal. 'I would never do that.' With regard to Scheepers' relentless cross-examination, Judge Ngoepe told Mbenenge that 'you need to understand advocate Scheepers' job, and she is doing her best and she is trying to be as fair as she can possibly be. 'For the rest, this remains with us. We can read and write. That is why we are here. We are going to read every single message and understand it in the way we are capable of understanding.' Whosoever diggeth a pit It has not been pleasant for anyone watching Mbenenge squirm under the weight of deeply intimate and personal details being made public. Under attack is his very worldview, which appears to contain so many halls and mirrors, it has detached him from self-reflection or control. At one point, while searching for a piece of evidence, he looked up and said 'I am lost', which certainly sums up to some extent his foray into his ill-considered advances to Mengo and the Earth-shattering consequences. Mbenenge had told the tribunal of his talent for 'being able to read a room' and that in his interpretation of all the WhatsApps between himself and Mengo, she was a 'willing participant'. This was regardless of initial rebuffs, which were followed by his relentless persistence, which he claimed was 'flirtation' and which he had hoped would become physical. Scheepers shot back that 'you intentionally did not read the room. You read what you wanted to read. You asked her 11 times for photographs, you even begged. And still she did not send any nude pictures.' Scheepers put it to Mbenenge that 'the dominant clause here is you asking for pictures.' The JP shot back angrily, 'No! The dominant clause is the taking of more pictures. She had already sent one [of her WhatsApp profile pictures, according to evidence]. ' He agreed that his messages were sent after hours, a time, he told the tribunal, that was more 'convenient' for him as a busy court head. He said he had been steering 'things in a direction, seeing as I had developed an interest in her'. There were many occasions when it appears Mbenenge's messages were not convenient for Mengo, who would either not respond, or when she did, she would say she was exhausted, or at the gym or cooking, or sleeping, or preparing for work. Scheepers asked Mbenenge why he had not informed or established with the court secretary up front that she might want this intimate relationship. 'I have yet to read a book where when you are interested in a woman, these are the steps you must take. You greet them, go for pleasantries, buy her a chocolate. I have not been charged here for flirting in one manner or another. Were the chats welcome? I say they were.'
News24
07-07-2025
- Politics
- News24
Mbenenge testifying in sexual harassment probe against him
Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge will on Monday take the stand and give his version of events in the Judicial Court Tribunal sexual harassment probe against him. Mbenenge is facing a misconduct investigation, which could lead to his impeachment. This investigation arises out of a sexual harassment complaint laid against him by judges' secretary, Andiswa Mengo, who works a judges' secretary in the Eastern Cape High Court. 6m ago Judge President Selby Mbenenge's attempt to lead the testimony of his sexual harassment accuser's former friend - whose statements included claims about Andiswa Mengo's sex life - has been dismissed by the tribunal tasked with deciding his guilt. Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Judicial Conduct Tribunal chairperson, retired Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, ruled that, after hearing submissions on whether stenographer Unathi Sogoni should give evidence about her two statements, his panel had decided not to allow that testimony. He told Sogoni, who had been sitting in the witness stand since mid-morning, that she was excused. Mengo has previously testified that, between 2021 and 2022 and after discovering that she was a single mother, Mbenenge bombarded her with requests for revealing pictures of herself and sexually loaded messages - some of which, she said, she had entertained and responded to because he was her boss. In testimony that has been fiercely denied by Mbenenge, Mengo said he had also sent her images of male genitalia (which she assumed was his) and tried to solicit oral sex from her in a November 2022 interaction in his High Court chambers. 8m ago Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge's advocate Muzi Sikhakhane has argued that an expert's evidence that 'no means no' failed to take into account 'prevailing cultural practices about courting'. In his cross-examination of leading gender expert Dr Lisa Vetten, Sikhakhane referred to the Xhosa and Zulu words ukuphimisa, ukushela or ukuqasa to stress that 'persistence' and 'pleading' were seen as a crucial part of dating in certain cultures. Vetten had earlier testified that if someone had rejected a colleague's advances in a workplace environment and they nonetheless persisted in their overtures towards that person, this could be viewed as harassment. 'So actually, you are saying to me, a no is a no in perpetuity really,' Sikhakhane responded. 'Yes, unless somebody comes to you and says, 'I've changed my mind',' said Vetten. Sikhakhane then told Vetten that the 'expert evidence you've just given doesn't take into account a number of prevailing cultural practices about courting'. 11m ago Judge President Selby Mbenenge's advocate has suggested a leading gender expert may have been 'completely mistaken' in her analysis of the Eastern Cape judicial head's sexually laden discussions with a secretary – because she is not Xhosa. 'That could certainly be possible,' Dr Lisa Vetten told Mbenenge's counsel, Muzi Sikhakhane, who then pressed her to concede that 'you may actually miss the messaging in the conversation' between the Judge President and secretary Andiswa Mengo. Vetten responded she had looked at Mengo's testimony 'to see what was happening in the translation and what was being said' and also 'specifically requested the WhatsApps with the translations so that I could get some insight'. Mengo testified in isiXhosa and intervened when she was unhappy with her interpreter's translation of her words into English. She revealed the Judge President had started messaging her after learning she was a single mother. On Monday, Vetten testified that her analysis of the WhatsApp messages exchanged between the then-60-year-old Mbenenge and 37-year-old Mengo revealed that the Judge President had asked her for intimate pictures 11 times during their first interaction. Go to top
Daily Maverick
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
D-day for Judge President Selby Mbenenge, who faces the inquisition of a lifetime
This morning at 9.30am, Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge will finally testify at the mammoth Judicial Conduct Tribunal investigating allegations against him of sexual harassment. July 7 at 9.30am, Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge will finally testify at the mammoth Judicial Conduct Tribunal investigating allegations against him of sexual harassment. The complaint, lodged with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) by court secretary Andiswa Mengo in January 2023, has hovered over the judge president like a sword of Damocles. Mbenenge took special leave (he was not suspended as is customary) as a result of the controversy. The judge president, according to Judges Matter, 'is highly regarded as a senior lawyer' and credited with transforming the division, unifying the disparate seats. He also attracted some of 'the finest legal minds to serve as judges of that court'. This case, as tribunal evidence leader, advocate Salomé Scheepers highlighted at the start, is historic. It is also the first major case of sexual harassment to reach the formal complaints process of the Judicial Service Commission. Judges Matter noted that 'the gravity of these proceedings [is] increased by Mbenenge's status in the judiciary: he is the second-most senior judge president in the country and is the sixth-most senior judge in judicial leadership. 'If found guilty, he might just be the third judge to face judicial impeachment in the history of South Africa'. Last week, several witnesses testified in favour of Mbenenge, including court secretaries and a Unicode expert on the technical architecture of emojis. These pollarded (basic) childlike digital icons became a centrepiece of the inquiry, with several 'experts' testifying on the multiple meanings that could be attached to an eggplant or a blushing peach. The central issue — which has been somewhat obscured by the dust kicked up by Mbenenge's formidable legal team, advocates Muzi Sikhakahne and Griffiths Madonsela — remains power relations in the workplace. Mbenenge has not denied sending crude, suggestive and explicit WhatsApp messages to Mengo and has insisted their contact was consensual. No contest On Friday, in an attempt to counter evidence by renowned Gender-Based Violence and sexual harassment expert, Dr Lisa Vetten, Mbenenge's legal team wheeled in a court stenographer. Unathu Sokoni, who began working for the courts in Springbok as a stenographer, and who moved to the Makhanda High Court, was called by Madonsela. But it turned out all Sokoni could offer was a WhatsApp conversation between the accuser, Mengo, and herself and that this was to be admitted as 'expert evidence' – possibly as a woman. 'Lisa Vetten came here in this tribunal and gave evidence to the effect that the complainant was subjugated because of the power positions of her, as a child secretary, and because the judge president was a judge and a father', complained Madonsela. Sokoni's conversation with Mbenenge's accuser would prove this not to be the case, he argued vehemently. The tribunal heard earlier in the week from another court secretary, Zintle Nkqayi, who testified for the judge president, that he had often referred to female staff as 'my big girls' and had a penchant for commenting on their appearance. Ironically, advocate Muzi Sikhahane had earlier accused Vetten of 'infantilising' Mengo by suggesting she did not have the capacity to ward off Mbenenge's persistent approaches. The tribunal has heard that Mbenenge would not take 'no' for an answer. Mengo's legal representative, Nasreen Rajab-Budlender, informed the inquiry that Sokoni was not 'an expert in power relations' and added that Mbenenge's legal team had been given ample time to find their own expert. 'They chose not to do so. The evidence Ms Sokoni seeks to give is irrelevant to the matter'. Ngoepe agreed that 'the panel is correct that Sokoni's evidence should be regarded as inadmissible'.
