
Gender expert biased towards judge president Mbenenge, lawyer says
Gender expert Lisa Vetten says legal professional Andiswa Mengo's ambiguous responses to Eastern Cape judge president Selby Mbenenge's overtures
The tribunal looking into whether Mbenenge is guilty of gross misconduct for the alleged sexual harassment of Mengo
'When it comes to the complainant, you are prepared to give very sympathetic, long-winded explanations for what she says, but you do not do that when you interpret what the respondent does,' Sikhakhane said on Tuesday in his continued cross-examination of Vetten.
'As an expert, you are not here as an advocate for complainants; you are here to interpret and give objective evidence.'
He said Vetten was blunt when analysing Mbenenge's texts but sympathetic when interpreting Mengo's allegations.
The gender expert had omitted salacious texts sent by Mengo, Sikhakhane added, claiming this showed the complainant was not ambiguous in her feelings and did not regard Mbenenge as a father figure but as a romantic interest. Even when Mengo was clear in her texts, Vetten wrongly interpreted it as an avoidance strategy, he said.
'The assumption of your opinion is that, faced with the words of the complainant, you offered a different interpretation of what she said,' Sikhakhane said.
Vetten said she observed a pattern in the texts in which Mengo said one thing and did another — similar to when she said 'Will do!' in response to a request for naked photos from Mbenenge but did not send them.
Sikhakhane argued that Vetten's interpretation of Mengo as a childlike victim who could not speak up for herself
Vetten responded that her opinion of Mengo and her responses within the power dynamics was consistent with similar cases of gender-based violence she had worked on.
'My comments are based on what I read here and how I understand or see what she says,' said Vetten, adding that she had considered the heads of argument and the context of the case.
Sikhakhane responded that Vetten was making generalisations about women and sexual harassment, which did not apply to the specific case between Mengo and Mbenenge.
He added that Mengo is a 42-year-old woman who is intelligent and capable of standing up for herself when made uncomfortable by sexual advances.
Sikhakhane said Mengo had a history of belligerence in the workplace, including an incident in which she physically attacked her line manager. He said this behaviour showed that she was not timid or afraid of confrontation.
'[This] particular complainant has exhibited a propensity not to fear authority and has physically attacked her line manager.'
Vetten responded that people can shift between aggressive and passive-aggressive behaviour, adding that a history of being extroverted did not mean power dynamics did not affect a person in subtle ways.
Sikhakhane resumed his earlier argument, first made during the tribunal's initial sitting in January, that power relations are not static and that his client's case did not fit a conventional gender dynamic.
He said that power could shift during a relationship and that, during the course of their conversation, the less powerful court secretary had held power over the judge president.
Sikhakhane said Vetten lacked an understanding of cultural and linguistic nuances and was therefore unable to analyse what is appropriate during courtship between two African people.
Vetten responded that her observation was that the conversation between Mengo and Mbenenge was inappropriate for the workplace.
While she argued that it was misconduct for a judge president to pursue a junior employee, Sikhakhane said this did not constitute harassment
Sikhakhane said Vetten was a well-known gender activist who, although she had helped many women, brought bias against his client and showed sympathy for Mengo.
'If I were to testify in matters where I must choose between African people and others, I would refuse, because I would not resist the temptation of not being objective.
'Do you agree with me that a person like me or you, who has strong views about a particular side of things, can actually sacrifice objectivity and present views filled with their own feelings and idiosyncrasies?'
Vetten responded that she had served on panels before and adjudicated cases in which the evidence presented did not fit a finding of sexual harassment.
Sikhakhane argued that since Vetten had admitted to not understanding isiXhosa, her expert analysis lacked insight into prevailing cultural practices around courtship.
'Your analysis is deficient without a cultural understanding of how romantic relationships unfold in an African setup,' he said.
'If you had read the cross-examination, it would have enhanced your analysis and impacted some of the things you said, because you do not know what he said.'
Vetten said she was aware from media reports and the evidence leader's heads of argument that Mbenenge believed the relationship was consensual. However, she was not convinced when she read the WhatsApp messages.
What stood out from the messages was that, while Mengo did not explicitly reject Mbenenge, she refused to commit to any of his sexual advances.
Sikhakhane said Vetten's description of Mengo as a submissive and docile woman was inaccurate and that false claims of sexual harassment risked undermining the experiences of actual victims.
Vetten said she was aware that false claims do occur but noted that women's credibility is often undermined when they do not 'behave well' enough to fit the description of a victim.
Sikhakhane implied that Mengo was making a false claim against Mbenenge and was using the allegation of sexual harassment to attack his character, which he said undermines gender-based violence advocacy.
The judicial conduct tribunal continues until 11 July, with Mbenenge expected to bring his witnesses and testify himself.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Understanding the cost implications of the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act on the property sector
If foreign investors exit the South African property market, property prices may cool. Image: Leon Lestrade, Independent Newspapers. The US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 will negatively affect the local property sector's investment dynamics and have cost implications if it becomes law. The bill was introduced by Ronny Jackson, a congressman from Texas, in April. For it to become a law, it will need to be approved by the House and Senate before being signed by President Donald Trump. It accuses South Africa of undermining the United States' interests by maintaining close relationships with the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, nations that are Pretoria's strong allies and key trading partners. On investment dynamics, Dr Farai Nyika, an academic programme leader in the School of Public Administration at the Management College of Southern Africa(MANCOSA), says South Africa's property sector depends significantly on both domestic and international investment. He said foreign involvement includes not only direct investment in physical developments but also the purchase of South African property-related shares on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). 'Should the bill become US law, the geopolitical risks associated with doing business in South Africa may deter foreign investors. This could result in a slowdown in physical property developments by foreign investors and a sell-off of South African property stocks. "Such a sell-off would constrain these companies' ability to raise capital, potentially leading to reduced profitability, operational cutbacks, and, disastrously, job losses,' Nyika told "Independent Media Property". The academic leader said it is key to note that the bill, in its current form, may change to broaden penalties beyond what is currently stated, so they could only speculate on its current form. He said it should be remembered that the bill is really targeting South African individuals, rather than the country as a whole. 'However, perceptions matter more than reality and legal precision; for example, though Zimbabwean politicians were the target of U.S sanctions in 2003, the Zim government claimed that the country's subsequent economic hardships were the result of the entire country being sanctioned. "By extension-sanctions that target individuals indirectly harm the economy. Because many property investors will say that they do not want to do business in a country that the 'US is sanctioning'. "Perversely, there could be some economic benefits to the local property market from the U.S sanctioning local politicians. If foreign investors exit the market, property prices may cool. "This could make housing more affordable for locals who have previously been priced out-particularly in urban centres like Cape Town, where gentrification has greatly limited social mobility and access to property ownership,' Nyika said. 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 With regards to cost implications, he said a large proportion of building materials, especially high-end fixtures for luxury properties and solar technologies, are imported. He said in a country that has been grappling with persistent load shedding and a transition to cleaner energy, the demand for solar and energy-efficient solutions is rising. 'However, if the bill disrupts trade relations or leads to broader sanctions, the cost of these imported materials may increase, raising construction and development costs. This could slow down South Africa's Just Energy Transition in the short term.' With that said, Nyika said economic pressure often fosters innovation. He said historical precedents show that sanctions or trade restrictions can trigger industrial growth-as was the case in both Zimbabwe and apartheid-era South Africa during the 1960s and 70s. 'In the long run, if the South African government were to prioritise industrial policy and local manufacturing, the country could reduce reliance on imports. "This would benefit the property sector by fostering domestic production of certain formerly imported building materials and solar items, improving resilience, and potentially creating new economic opportunities to expand local property.' Asked whether the South Africa property sector will have resort in this regard, Dr Thandile Ncwana, also an Academic Programme Leader at the same institution, said but some of the possible strategic play for South Africa in this situation should the bill be approved, is to mitigate escalation and maintain its relationship with the US by considering engaging in high-level bilateral diplomacy aimed at clarifying its foreign policy positions while reaffirming its commitment to democratic values, trade and multilateral cooperation. She said proactive parliamentary diplomacy, Track II dialogue forums, and regular engagement with the US Congress and civil society actors could help reframe South Africa's stance as one of principled non-alignment rather than strategic antagonism. 'Because reinforcing bilateral economic ties and highlighting areas of mutual benefit, such as climate action, infrastructure development and health, can serve as diplomatic buffers. The government also have a chance to carefully balance between asserting its foreign policy independence and avoiding diplomatic or economic isolation. "This can be achieved by adopting a transparent foreign policy communication strategy, clearly articulating the principles behind its international engagements, and avoiding actions that may be interpreted as tacit support for states or groups under U.S. sanctions,' Ncwana said. She added that multilateralism should remain at the heart of South Africa's diplomacy, and efforts must be intensified to build consensus with African partners, BRICS allies, and Western institutions alike to maintain strategic flexibility and avoid becoming a casualty of great-power rivalry. Politically, she said South Africa should adopt a dual-track diplomacy strategy that preserves its non-aligned international stance while actively engaging U.S. policymakers to dispel misconceptions about its foreign policy positions. 'This includes convening high-level bilateral dialogues, leveraging multilateral platforms like the United Nations and African Union to clarify its principled positions, and re-establishing structured parliamentary exchanges with the US Congress. "South Africa's leadership can also benefit from a strategic public diplomacy campaign that communicates its commitment to constitutional democracy, human rights, and peaceful conflict resolution principles historically shared with the US. "These efforts can de-escalate tensions and rebuild political trust, allowing space for honest disagreement without undermining the broader relationship.' Ncwana said that overall, the South African government can lastly play a strategic move by enhancing interdepartmental coordination, particularly between the Departments of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), Trade and Industry, and National Treasury to ensure cohesive messaging and responsiveness to external developments like the US legislative process. Independent Media Property

The Herald
10 hours ago
- The Herald
'I'm a new chief whip': MK Party's Makhubele plays down 'yes' vote blunder in Appropriation Bill
MK Party chief whip Colleen Makhubele has played down confusion about the Appropriation Bill in parliament where she mistakenly voted 'yes' for the bill the party maintained it would reject. During the budget vote on Wednesday, Makhubele announced the party was voting in favour of the bill, claiming 49 votes in support. However, after the house chair asked her to verify, she did a swift U-turn, declaring they were voting against the bill. Makhubele said she thought they were voting for the ad hoc committee to investigate the allegations by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. 'We are rejecting this. We are changing our vote. I thought we were dealing with the ad hoc committee. We will support it when it comes, that was the confusion,' Makhubele said. 'I'm just a new chief whip, I will make errors, so relax. We are voting against the bill.' Makhubele, who was appointed chief whip last month replacing Mzwanele Manyi, faced severe backlash from other MPs who mocked her in parliament. EFF leader Julius Malema criticised Makhubele's blunder during a media briefing on Thursday. 'It was a mess, a mess in action,' Malema said. 'That's what you elected South Africa. You are asked twice and you're saying, 'I'm voting in support'. That MK Party caucus almost collapsed yesterday [Wednesday]. You elect people who do not understand. The chairperson allows that. It's not principled. Once the voting is closed it's done. He undermined the decorum and the integrity of that process. MK Party will never reduce us in numbers anywhere else including in thinking.' The National Assembly approved the Appropriation Bill by 262 votes to 90. All 10 parties in the government of national unity voted in favour, while the MK Party, EFF, African Transformation Movement, United Africans Transformation and National Coloured Congress opposed the bill. TimesLIVE


The Citizen
19 hours ago
- The Citizen
Ramaphosa hopes diplomacy amid US push for sanctions on SA
The US House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a bill tabled by Republican Ronny Jackson calling for a full review of US relations with South Africa. President Cyril Ramaphosa says South Africa is in the dark about the United States' push to ban ANC leaders, hoping that diplomacy will prevail. The US House Committee on Foreign Affairs this week passed a bill tabled by Republican Ronny Jackson in April, calling for a full review of US relations with South Africa. Sanctions bill The Committee voted 34-16 on Tuesday to send the 'US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act' to the full House of Representatives, where it could be subject to a vote. Jackson introduced the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act, providing tools to impose sanctions on 'corrupt South African government officials' who support America's adversaries like China, Russia and Iran, among others. ALSO READ: US Congressman Ronny Jackson introduces bill to hold SA accountable He introduced a bill that would mandate a comprehensive review of the bilateral relationship between the United States and South Africa. Jackson said Representative John James was co-leading the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act legislation. Ramaphosa responds The bill comes as relations between the US and South Africa are at an all-time low after US President Donald Trump cut financial aid to South Africa, citing Pretoria taking Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and 'strengthening ties with Iran, which supports terrorism globally'. Speaking to the media after his visit to the BMW plant in Rosslyn, Pretoria, Ramaphosa said he and his administration had taken note of the passing of the bill, adding that it would not impact South Africa's approach to dealing with the United States. 'We have heard what has happened in the US House committee, and that whole process still has a long way to go,' he said. 'Discussions will be ongoing, and we don't know exactly what is driving all this.' 'Our bilateral discussions and dealings with the United States will continue, and we will talk about all manner of things, including precisely this issue and many others. We've got good diplomatic relations with the US, and we want to enrich them and make them better. So, we are very positive,' Ramaphosa said. [WATCH] President Cyril Ramaphosa says South Africa is in the dark about the United States' push to ban ANC leaders. He adds that he is positive about the outcome of engagements between the two countries.#Newzroom405 — Newzroom Afrika (@Newzroom405) July 24, 2025 ALSO READ: Is Trump about to slap sanctions on SA for misguided 'white genocide?' US tensions South Africa's relationship with the US sharply deteriorated during Donald Trump's second term, during which he has accused the government of anti-white racism and started a refugee programme for white farmers and Afrikaners. Relations were further strained following the remarks of former South African Ambassador to the US Ebrahim Rasool on Trump. Rasool was expelled by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio after he claimed in a webinar that US President Trump (and, later, Elon Musk) are leading a global white supremacist movement. Rasool was not replaced, and it was recently revealed that the US had, several months ago, rejected the South African government's appointment of Mcebisi Jonas as a special envoy to its country. The Presidency said that while Jonas, as special envoy, does not present diplomatic credentials to host countries in the way designated heads of mission or other diplomats do, he had helped facilitate trade and international relations efforts 'to reset diplomatic relations and all areas of cooperation between South Africa and the United States'. Tariffs Ramaphosa met with Trump in May amid the rapidly deteriorating relationship between the two countries. Earlier this month, the US hit South Africa with 30% tariffs 'on any and all South African products sent into the United States'. The tariff will take effect on 1 August. In a letter to Ramaphosa, Trump claimed that the steep tariffs were necessary to correct what he described as 'a persistent trade deficit between the two countries'. However, this was challenged by Ramaphosa, who said the decision was based on a flawed interpretation of trade data. ALSO READ: WATCH: Donald Trump ambushes Cyril Ramaphosa in Oval Office