Mbenenge tribunal — expert explains emoji code origin, but not human interpretation
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
10 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.
Eyewitness News
14 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Witness says Mbenenge and Mengo mostly used emojis representing joy, happiness in their conversations
JOHANNESBURG - A new witness before the Judicial Conduct Tribunal (JCT) investigating allegations of sexual harassment against Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge, said that the judge and high court secretary, Andiswa Mengo, mostly used emojis that represented happiness and joy in their conversations. Expert in information communication technology (ICT), Dr Vincent Mello, told the tribunal that the "rolling on the floor, laughter" emoji was used 20 and 28 times by the parties during their conversations on the social media platform, WhatsApp. Earlier this year, forensic and legal linguist, Dr Zakeera Docrat, was called to testify by evidence leader, Advocate Salome Scheepers and said that the judge president used emojis with explicit sexual connotations in his interactions with the junior staffer. However, the legal team for the Eastern Cape's highest judge is continuing its quest to discredit this testimony. It called on Mello to provide his expertise on emojis and their use before the fact-finding body sitting in Sandton, Johannesburg. When probed on the use of the laughing emojis, Mello said the parties used them in the same way, with this meaning ascribed to them. "Crying, funny, ha ha, happy, hey hey, hilarious, joy, laughter, lol, lots of laugh." Advocate Griffiths Madonsela also quizzed Mello on the use of the emoji with its hands covering its eyes. Mello said it was used approximately 20 and 24 times and had different meanings attached to it. "The ascribed meaning would be embarrassed, hide, also you can see in terms of forbidden and OMG shortened to be 'oh my God.'"
IOL News
15 hours ago
- IOL News
Five Truths in Lawfare and the Weaponisation of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of Judge President Selby Mbenenge
Gillian Schutte unpacks the political, epistemic, and ideological 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.
