Five Truths in Lawfare and the 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
African Union's dependence on donor funding is a legacy of rampant colonial plunder
Mo Ibrahim, the prominent Sudanese-British billionaire, ignited a potent debate at his annual governance weekend in Marrakesh, Morocco, an unofficial gathering of African luminaries. Ibrahim criticised the African Union's (AU's) 70% dependence on external financing during his conversation with the former AU commission chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat: 'You call them colonisers, but when they give us money, they're partners… This is a farce; either you're serious, or you forget it.' He was ostensibly championing African sovereignty. However, this perspective, while nominally highlighting a crucial contradiction, suffers from a fundamental conceptual flaw in its assessment of such financial assistance. These contributions, regardless of their framing as development partnerships, are not benevolent donations from the West; they are, in essence, a protracted form of restitution for centuries of systemic exploitation. The historical timeline of Africa's subjugation dates back to 1415, with Portugal's occupation of Ceuta, Morocco, initiating a predatory colonial expansion that culminated in the infamous 'Scramble for Africa' in the 19th century. The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 formalised the partition of the continent among European powers, heedless of existing cultural, ethnic, or social boundaries. This exploitation, which extended well into the latter half of the 20th century, left indelible scars and profound economic dislocations that continue to plague the continent. Slave trade The transatlantic slave trade, a particularly brutal manifestation of Western colonialism from the 15th to 19th centuries, forcibly transported more than 12.5 million Africans to the Americas between 1501 and 1866. This inhumane trade was not merely economic exploitation; it was underpinned by an intellectual scaffolding designed to rationalise the subjugation of black people as inherently inferior, solidifying the notion of white racial supremacy. This deliberate construction of racial hierarchy created a cohesive ideological framework that justified domination and exclusion based on race, becoming an integral part of the modern global system, permeating international relations, economics, politics and culture, with repercussions still felt today. These were not isolated historical events but systematic processes that birthed modern racism as an ideology and institutional practice. The colonial project relied on these conceptions not only to legitimise human trafficking, but also to solidify a global structure in which Africa occupied a subordinate position. The scale of this historical plunder is staggering. One conservative estimate suggests that the British Empire alone had extracted more than £35-trillion (in current terms) from its various colonies across the world, alongside an abundance of cheap or completely unpaid labour and vast quantities of commodities such as rubber, sugar and oil. Continuing extractive dynamic The outflow of wealth from Africa persists even after the end of direct colonial rule. A modern study revealed that between 1970 and 2010, $814-billion (in 2010 US dollars) flowed out of sub-Saharan Africa through capital flight, illicit financial flows, resource mispricing, and debt servicing. This figure significantly surpasses both official development aid and foreign direct investment to the region, underscoring a continuing extractive dynamic. Beyond direct financial losses, colonialism inflicted immense opportunity costs, impeding Africa's natural development. While Europe's net foreign assets reached 70% of its GDP by 1914, Africa suffered a lost annual growth rate of 0.9% to 1.3% during the colonial era. This is in addition to the destruction of indigenous economic systems, land ownership structures, impeding industrial development, enforcing monoculture economies, fragmentation of trade zones by creating artificial political and economic boundaries, and the suppression of independent scientific, economic and intellectual advancement. Furthermore, the pattern of European colonial exploitation versus developmental investment was not uniform. Britain, the largest colonial power, allocated a mere 16.9% of its capital exports to all its colonies (excluding Canada, Australia and New Zealand), which is less than the 20.5% directed to the United States alone. Any claim about a beneficial contribution of colonial powers in the development of their African colonies is, at best, a fallacy. Even anthropometric studies indicate a decline in the height of African people by at least 1.1cm during colonisation, signalling worsened health and nutrition due to land grabbing, forced labour and disease, reflecting a decline in the biological standard of living with long-term economic implications. Furthermore, European colonialism arrested the natural evolution of African social and political systems. African societies were denied the gradual development necessary for the maturity of stable governing institutions and the internal construction of political and social legitimacy. Colonial powers deliberately dismantled traditional structures and local governance systems, replacing them with authoritarian, externally imposed authorities serving colonial interests. Political instability This severed the organic interaction between society and the state, a vital foundation for long-term political stability. The direct consequences are evident in the recurrent civil wars, coups and political instability that have plagued African nations throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, leaving a legacy of autocratic institutions dominated by military or ethnic elites. In contrast, Europe itself was not immune to internal strife and political fragmentation during its own political development. The continent endured centuries of religious conflicts and devastating wars, such as the Thirty Years' War in the 17th century and the two world wars in the 20th century, before forging formulas for political and social consensus, including constitutional democracy and the rule of law. The crucial distinction, however, lies in Europe's ability to undergo these transformations from within its own societal and political fabric, accumulating historical experiences organically. Africa, conversely, was deprived of this process by colonial subjugation imposed through force and domination, rather than internal interaction or social and political negotiation. This distortion warped the paths of state-building, leading to the reproduction of oppressive structures post-independence, often under national guises but with fundamentally colonial tools. Although development aid is typically not classified as reparations, for the purpose of Mo Ibrahim's argument, let us regard it as such. Astronomical figures In 1999, the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission called for the West to pay $777-trillion, a figure equivalent to approximately $1.34-quadrillion in 2023. More recently, the Brattle Group, an international consultancy firm, quantified the cost of the transatlantic chattel slavery at $100-trillion to $131-trillion. Taking the most conservative estimate of $100-trillion as the cost of colonialism in Africa, the scale of redress required is astronomical. If external partners were to pay the entire AU annual budget of $650-million, it would take approximately 153,000 years to compensate for the colonial plundering. Even if we assume that all developmental and humanitarian aid to Africa, currently estimated at a maximum of $3.5-billion annually (disregarding the political and economic conditionalities that often ensure donors gain $2.15 for every $1 disbursed in aid) constitutes reparations, Europe would still need more than 28,500 years of sustained payments to compensate for the $100-trillion in colonial losses, assuming no inflation or interest. It's possible — only just possible — that the clamour kicked up by Ibrahim springs from the AU's move to designate 2025 the 'Year of Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations'. No one genuinely expects Europe, or any former colonial power, to cough up reparations that could ever truly right the wrongs of colonialism's devastation. Those wounds run too deep, carved by centuries of fire, bullets, and blood — no sum could balance that ledger. Yet, the claims stand, unyielding, timeless and just. However, the mere whisper of reparations seems enough to rattle European investors, and Europe-based investors especially, as the global economy stumbles. Their reflex? To polish the meagre scraps of aid they toss our way, dressing them up as some grand atonement for a past they'd rather we forget. Ibrahim's comments were made in dialogue during his good governance event with the departing chairperson of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat, whose tenure from March 2017 to February 2025 was marked by significant controversy. While Ibrahim is keen to criticise the AU's sources of funding, he overlooked the widespread characterisation of his guest as a ' disaster ' for the organisation. AU staff accused Faki of corruption, cronyism and leadership failures, alleging a mafia-style cartel that operates with impunity within the AU. The greater problem for the AU, and the source of its ineffectiveness, lies not solely in its funding sources but fundamentally in the calibre of leadership exemplified by politicians like Faki. Profoundly problematic Perhaps Ibrahim was correct in one regard: his derision of the slogan 'African solutions for African problems'. This slogan is, indeed, profoundly problematic. Africa does not suffer from 'African problems' with a specific racial nationality or phenotypic characteristic. Rather, it confronts political, economic and social challenges within the context of an ongoing geopolitical exploitation — another reality that the 'wise men' convening in Marrakesh often conveniently avoid acknowledging, lest it affect their direct economic interests and investments. The Emirati role in the Sudanese conflict serves as a prominent case in point. Former colonisers, those whom Ibrahim disdains calling such, played a significant role in creating these problems. These problems require solutions commensurate with their nature: political, economic and social solutions made by policies tailored to address them. Crafting these solutions demands not merely financial resources but also the genuine exchange of expertise and true investment in developing Africa's human capital to forge them. There is no foreseeable future where European nations can simply be just 'partners' free from the shadow of their colonial history. African nations need to continue reminding Europe of its ongoing benefits of this historical exploitation. This historical reality may come as something of a disappointment to Ibrahim, but historical amnesia is a luxury only the beneficiaries can afford. The tangible and enduring impact of colonialism on our lived present is a stark reality, not merely an abstraction to be dismissed with Ibrahim's sarcasm. The past is not merely prologue; it is an active force shaping the present and demanding a more nuanced and historically informed understanding of Africa's path forward. DM
Daily Maverick
3 hours 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.
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Rethinking African urbanisation and putting urban transition on the G20 agenda
The Urban20 (U20) is a G20 engagement group, and the only one where subnational government is represented. Its function is to prepare a communique of recommendations on inclusive economic development, climate resilient infrastructure and planning, and urban management issues for the president of the G20. The U20 is co-hosted by the Cities of Tshwane and Johannesburg, which will host a second U20 Summit in mid-September. The first convening took place in June in Pretoria and a second one is planned for 12-14 September 2025 in Johannesburg. Fittingly, the host cities have decided to focus the agenda of the U20 meetings on the challenges and opportunities that African cities face amid rapid urbanisation — inadequate infrastructure investment, limited political and fiscal devolution, and restless young people unwilling to accept having no voice in the governance of their cities and neighbourhoods. Urban development pressures The addition of the African Union (AU) as a full member of the G20 took place in 2023 during the Indian presidency, but politically it is South Africa's presidency this year that will be judged on the extent to which it can focus the attention of G20 members on the urgent development pressures facing the African continent. A concept paper prepared for the Assembly of African Mayors in June highlighted key urban imperatives that the AU's membership brings into the U20 debates. The hope is that the clarity of the African urban focus will infuse the broader G20 agenda. Greater clarity on the spatial, territorial and urban dimension of macro-development policymaking across the AU and the G20 is the primary purpose of the U20. It is deeply significant that the voices of African mayors are being heard, given that for too long the urban question has been a low policy priority. The AU clarified its agenda for advancing sustainable urbanism across Africa in the declaration of the inaugural African Urban Forum hosted by the Ethiopian government in September 2024. The declaration asserts the imperative to 'establish national urban forums for the implementation of integrated and inclusive national urban policies that underpin the national territorial plan in each member state to address urban planning and inequalities, consequences of climate change, and financing needs for the development and management of cities and towns, or the development of such policies where they do not yet exist'. This political mouthful is less significant for its content than for its tone. There is, for the first time, an insistence that inclusive mechanisms for debating national urban policy priorities are essential, alongside the notion of a 'territorial' plan that spells out the spatial imperatives of national infrastructure investments. Still, most African countries do not have these mechanisms in place, undermining the role of city governments in driving national development objectives such as structural economic transformation and climate resilience. State hostility, squandered opportunities In the wake of the African Urban Forum, the AU is putting forward a strong case for focusing on urban development as central to structural economic transformation, but in truth, the G20 policy framing will have to combat the political inertia, and at times hostility of AU member states towards urbanisation. There is a history to these regressive positions. In 2008, I attended the High-level Symposium as part of the Annual Meetings of the African Development Bank in Maputo. The event was convened under the theme, Fostering Shared Growth: Urbanisation, Inequality and Poverty in Africa. During the session, Zimbabwe's minister of finance addressed the packed auditorium and extolled the virtues of forced removals of communities and markets in inner city Harare during Operation Murambatsvina, circa 2005. Shockingly, he got a standing ovation from the other African leaders in attendance. Using force to displace the urban poor was often the only policy tool in a broader context where governments were in denial about the reality of urbanisation and reluctant to empower city governments to proactively harness the demographic transition for economic development and cultural purposes. Consequently, enormous economic and social development opportunities were squandered. Greater AU attention For more than a decade, the AU has been giving far greater attention to the potential of cities and empowering local governance. The African Charter on the Values and Principles of Decentralisation, Local Governance and Local Development sets the stage for the empowerment of subnational governments. However, devolution has simply not been a priority for most AU members, evidenced in the fact that only nine countries have ratified the Charter's adoption on 27 June 2014. South Africa is one of them. The political economy of this reluctance is not hard to fathom when you consider that opposition political parties tend to first get a foothold in cities, and opposition to government is often concentrated in poorer, more politically active city neighbourhoods, as we witnessed recently with uprisings in Nairobi and Maputo. Africa Urban Forum Urban hesitancy may be waning as the AU sharpens the spatial focus of its developmental aspirations. In September 2024, a decent political clearing was finally created by the AU with the hosting of the inaugural Africa Urban Forum. A palpable sense of urgency pervaded the event rooted in an acknowledgement that the continent had lost an enormous amount of time to understand and optimise the inevitable urbanisation transition. The AU, in its positioning in the G20, is now heeding leading African economist, Carlos Lopes, who argues that urbanisation is an essential dynamic that can be 'the central axis of Africa's structural transformation — an opportunity to reorganise economies, multiply productivity, and rewire the foundations of development'. It is against Africa's belated but welcome embrace of the urban challenge that we must evaluate the significance of the work of the U20 Engagement Group during the South African presidency of the G20. The priority topics will include inclusive economic growth, municipal finance, social inclusion and equity, and innovation in service delivery. Hopefully, these will not be empty signifiers in a world of excess jargon, but a true political reckoning with the price we will pay for continuing to neglect our cities, and most importantly, our citizens. DM
