Mbenenge rejects assertion that peeled banana emoji he sent to Mengo was meant to be his penis
JOHANNESBURG - Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge has rejected the assertion that the peeled banana he sent to high court secretary, Andiswa Mengo was meant to depict a male private part.
The judge president on Tuesday was reading the WhatsApp texts between himself and Mengo before the Judicial Conduct Tribunal probing allegations of misconduct against him.
Mengo accuses the senior judge of making unwanted sexual advances towards her between 2021 and 2022.
But, Mbenenge denies this and has also rubbished the testimony of some expert witnesses.
In May this year, forensic and legal linguist Dr Zakeera Docrat told the tribunal that the emoji of a peeled banana sent by Mbenenge to Mengo represented a circumcised male private part.
When the judge president sent the emoji in June 2021, the pair was exchanging texts with sexual connotations on messaging service, WhatsApp.
But, Mbenenge denied that the banana was meant to signify what was testified by Docrat.
"In other words, I was saying, I was going to give you something nice. I could've sent a chocolate. I could've sent anything that people, when they meet, would love to share. But clearly, it has got nothing to do with any penis."
Mbenenge claimed ignorance when probed on Docrat's evidence, saying he would have had to study a degree in emojis to understand the sexual connotation attached to it.
ALSO READ: Mbenenge tells tribunal Mengo used endearing terms towards him
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
5 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Mbenenge tells tribunal he believes he was 'being led on' by Mengo
JOHANNESBURG - Eastern Cape top judge, Selby Mbenenge, has told the body investigating sexual harassment allegations against him that his junior staffer, Andiswa Mengo, led him on. The judge president has alleged that Mengo did not reject him when he made advances towards her, leading to a flirtatious relationship between them. Mbenenge was cross-examined before the Judicial Conduct Tribunal sitting in Sandton, Johannesburg on Wednesday. ALSO READ: • Mbenenge insists peeled banana emoji sent to Mengo did not have any sexual connotation • Mbenenge defends sending a late-night apology text message to Mengo • Mbenenge tribunal: Anti-GBV protestors disturb proceedings • Mbenenge says he's opened a case of crimen injuria against Mengo • Mbenenge accuses Mengo of 'embellishing' sexual harassment complaint against him Evidence leader, Salome Scheepers: "Do you understand that emojis and vague responses are not an indication of consent or reciprocation, but possibly a coping mechanism in an uncomfortable situation, like the complainant testified? She was trying to cope, meaning she did not want to talk." Mbenenge: "No, that's not." Scheepers: "She does not want to say things." Mbenenge: "No, no, that's not what it means." Scheepers: "It can mean that. It can mean that some things are better not said because she knew that she had to respect you." However, Mbenenge said that the messages from the complainant did not suggest this. "I disagree with the interpretation that you are giving from the perspective that I am saying, insofar as whether these chats were welcome or unwelcome, I have not come across anything that was conveyed to me that should make me believe that it was unwelcome. I don't regard what she is saying there as a rebuff. On the contrary, I believe that I was being led on."
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
From Flirtation to Tribunal: The Misuse of Article 5 in the Mbenenge Case
Eastern Cape High Court Judge President Selby Mbenenge. As the case unfolds, the distinction between flirtation and harassment blurs, challenging the integrity of judicial processes in South Africa, writes Gillian Schutte. Image: Office of the Chief Justice As the Judicial Conduct Tribunal against Judge President Selby Mbenenge drags on under intense public and media scrutiny, a curious and dangerous paradox has taken shape: the accused is being tried as if he were charged with violating Article 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. But he isn't. Article 5, which demands that a judge must always, and not only in the discharge of official duties, act honourably and in a manner befitting judicial office, has become the moral lens through which the case is viewed. Yet, it is absent from the formal charge sheet. Mbenenge is not being judged on whether his conduct was unbecoming. He is being tried, formally and narrowly, for sexual harassment — a specific and technical offence that must meet a higher threshold of proof. This sleight of hand, whether careless or calculated, has serious implications not only for the principle of due process but for the integrity of judicial discipline in South Africa. The Legal Construct: Charge First, Ethics Second In judicial proceedings, as in criminal law, the accused must meet the case as charged. This is not merely procedural nitpicking. It is a foundational principle of fairness. The JSC process does not allow for a competent verdict, the mechanism in criminal law that permits conviction on a lesser charge if the main charge fails. In the absence of Article 5 on the charge sheet, no finding of 'conduct unbecoming' can lawfully be made, no matter how convincingly the optics are stacked against him. This is why the defence is in an invidious position. They do not deny the existence of WhatsApp flirtation. They argue, rightly, that the exchanges were mutual and private, and that the context reflects consensual banter rather than coercion. But in making this argument, they are trapped in a moral discourse not grounded in the charge, yet reinforced by media narratives, NGO rhetoric, and ideological framing. This has created a scenario where the Tribunal proceedings blur into a cultural inquisition rather than a measured adjudication of whether the conduct in question meets the test of sexual harassment under the JSC Act. 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 ✕ Ad loading Flirtation, Privacy, and the Politics of Narrative WhatsApp messages between adults, particularly when mutually flirtatious, exist within the protected domain of privacy. When lifted from that domain, stripped of full context, and reframed through ideological filters, they are transformed from interpersonal exchange into evidence of ethical decay. The problem is that this ethical interpretation is being retrofitted to charges it was never designed to support. The media, and those prosecuting the case in the court of public opinion, are back-projecting Article 5 onto a legal process that has not invoked it. There is, in this move, an implicit conflation of flirtation with predation. The Tribunal risks ignoring the cultural, linguistic, and social nuances of communication, particularly in isiXhosa-speaking professional environments, in favour of a universalised Western feminist script in which flirtation between a senior man and a younger woman is always interpreted as an abuse of power, regardless of context, mutuality, or complexity. Ethical Optics as Soft Lawfare What we are seeing is a trial by ethical aesthetics rather than judicial evidence. The complainant's claims are amplified by external experts and NGO representatives who, while asserting neutrality, operate from within donor-funded ideological frameworks that centre presumed guilt in gender-based claims, especially when the accused is a Black man in power. This mode of operation is fast becoming a soft lawfare tactic. Apply the ethics of Article 5 in discourse, but avoid its procedural burdens in law. The result is a hybrid tribunal where the public is encouraged to believe that the judge is 'clearly guilty' of something, even if the charge, as formulated, cannot sustain that belief under scrutiny. The core question is no longer whether the accused committed sexual harassment, but whether he appears respectable enough to bear the burden of his office. But appearances are not evidence. And in a society already fractured by class, gender, and racialised trauma, we cannot afford to replace law with moral performance. A Caution for the Judiciary This Tribunal has the potential to set a dangerous precedent. That optics trump process, and that an ideological charge can succeed even when the legal charge fails. If Mbenenge is found guilty of sexual harassment without meeting the evidentiary requirements of that charge, on the basis of ethical discomfort with his behaviour, then the judiciary will have crossed into a terrain where the rules don't matter and only feelings do. Worse still, such a precedent would not protect women. It would erode procedural fairness in ways that can be weaponised in any direction. Today it is used against a powerful Black man. Tomorrow, it may be used to silence dissent, criminalise political speech, or remove judges who challenge elite interests. We are not obliged to admire Mbenenge's messages. But unless the evidence proves that they constitute harassment rather than flirtation, coercion rather than banter, harm rather than mutual play, then we must be cautious not to abandon the very principles that protect all of us. And we must insist that justice be done as charged, not as imagined. The ongoing Judicial Conduct Tribunal against Judge President Selby Mbenenge raises critical questions about the misuse of Article 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As the case unfolds, the distinction between flirtation and harassment blurs, challenging the integrity of judicial processes in South Africa. Image: IOL
The South African
9 hours ago
- The South African
No ordinary delivery: Sixty60 driver escapes dramatic shootout
A Checkers Sixty60 driver was spotted casually driving through a dramatic high-speed police chase and shootout with a criminal in a video that has gone viral. The incident took place in Muizenberg on Monday, 7 July. It comes months after another delivery driver was captured gatecrashing a wedding video in Cape Town's city centre. According to the Crime in SA X account, a high-speed car chase between police and a suspect wanted for robbery took place on Monday afternoon. The incident occurred in Muizenberg at the Sanderling Circle and Baden Powell, where police intercepted a speeding Volkswagen Polo. During the video, police shot at and kicked down the door of the vehicle, pulling out the man behind the wheel. Eagled-eyed X users were amused to spot a Checkers Sixty60 delivery driver in the background, likely en route to their destination. @ZoeMlisana posted: 'Drove through a car chase and shootout to make sure that milk is delivered within 60 minutes'. Another, @10_Amo16, jokingly added: 'They have 60 lives'. According to the Shoprite Group, Checkers Sixty60 has a service guarantee in place to deliver 'no matter the weather.' The group's Chief Strategy Officer, Neil Schreuder, said in a statement: ' In South Africa, this can be tricky at times given load shedding-related traffic congestion, rainy weather, and other challenges faced by drivers on the roads.' According to BusinessTech , Checkers Sixty60 drivers are independent contractors who own motorbikes and purchase their uniforms. Checkers Sixty60 drivers are mandated to deliver your orders within 60 minutes. Image: Shoprite Group The drivers are expected to deliver their orders within 60 minutes, failing which could result in alleged deductions. Additionally, customers will receive free delivery if an order arrives more than 30 minutes after the estimated time of arrival and if the order contains less than 80% of a customer's first-choice products. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp , Facebook , X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
