Latest news with #JudicialServicesCommission
IOL News
08-07-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Judge Mbenenge inquiry: Criminal case of crimen injuria opened against Mengo
Before proceedings concluded on Tuesday, former Judge President Selby Mbenenge confirmed that he had opened a criminal case of crimen injuria case against Mengo which he said showed his commitment to dispute what he was alleged to have done. Image: Office of the Chief Justice / S Lioners Sexual harassment complainant Andiswa Mengo was labelled to have 'selective amnesia' by former Judge President Selby Mbenenge as he continued his testimony at the Judicial Conduct Tribunal on Tuesday. JP Mbenenge is accused of having engaged in untoward and sexually-driven Whatsapp conversations between himself and Mengo over a period of time which he conceded were 'flirtatious' and 'deeply sensual' but defended himself saying these were consensual conversations between them. Before proceedings concluded on Tuesday, JP Mbenenge confirmed that he had opened a criminal case of crimen injuria against Mengo which he said showed his commitment to dispute what he was alleged to have done. This was coupled with an apology. 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 ✕ 'It is embarrassing to me that clandestine chats between two adults came into the public domain. I regret that it happened and I can only apologise to South Africans insofar as they have become privy to embarrassing chats," said JP Mbenenge. On Tuesday, JP Mbenenge at length picked apart conversations that occurred between himself and Mengo which he alluded to it being selectively testified on by the sexual harassment complainant. 'A complaint which is laced up in lies, should not have seen the doors of the Judicial Services Commission (JSC). A complaint founded on lies should not be entertained,' he said. Further to this, JP Mbenenge continued to vehemently deny that he had sent Mengo pictures of his male private parts and then having deleted them. Referring to exhibits issued to the Tribunal relating to Mengo's complaints, the panel was referred to an exhibit which is described to allegedly be his private part and also another pornographic picture of a couple in a sexual position. 'We will sit here until the cows come out, but there is no such picture,' said JP Mbenenge referring to the exhibits which appeared to not correspond with what Mengo said it to be in her testimony and affidavit. JP Mbenenge, who said he had to be explicit in defending himself, said his conversations with Mengo were 'merely chats and conversations' that were of a 'sensual' nature and denied having sent pictures of his private parts to her. Further to this, he testified that Mengo had on an occasion which she wished him on a Father's Day, called him by his clan name 'Jola', which is culturally considered in isiXhosa, as a term of endearment. He testified that Mengo initiated the conversation on the day at 6.03am and he woke to the message she had sent to him. According to him, when he was invited by Mengo to 'earn it' - when he had solicited a picture from her - she 'invited me to persist'. 'In respect of persistence: persistence is persistence. Demanding and coercion is something else,' said JP Mbenenge. According to him, referring to a peeled banana emoji sent to Mengo, JP Mbenenge said it did not represent sex when he sent her the emoji but according to JP Mbenenge, when he said to Mengo: 'I was going to share something nice with you' with a peeled banana, it was to suggest that the two of them would eat a banana together. 'I am not an expert of this emoji things, it was the first time when Dr (Zakeera) Docrat testified that it represented a circumcised penis, that was not what I was conveying. I don't know those things,' said JP Mbenenge. According to him, the context he had sent the banana in, was in its literal sense. Moments later, probed about sending Mengo the peach and eggplant emoji's, JP Mbenenge confirmed that in the context of their conversation it signified 'sensual' fruits which signified intimacy. Further led by his counsel Muzi Sikhakhane, JP Mbenenge said he had sent the needle emoji to Mengo 'in the context of health' after she informed him that she had taken ill. JP Mbenenge confirmed that when he sent the emoji to Mengo he implied that he wanted to 'lift her spirits' and would 'do anything and everything to uplift' Mengo's spirits. Probed if he implied that the needle emoji could have been interpreted as a male private part, JP Mbenenge said: 'I could mean that. I don't associate a needle with a penis but within (the context of this) deep sensual talk, it could have meant that.' The Tribunal continues on Wednesday.
IOL News
20-06-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Constitutional Court: Champion of the People or Protector of the Elite?
South Africa's first woman Chief Justice and the head of the Constitutional Court Mandisa at her interview with the Judicial Services Commission on February 2, 2022. Image: Timothy Bernard/African News Agency(ANA) Kim Heller The thirty-year-old Constitutional Court is a living shrine to the supreme pledge of equality and justice in democratic South Africa. The real test of the highest court in the land is whether it is an effectual guardian of the people, especially of the most powerless and marginalised in society. In the injustice of apartheid, courts accorded legality to an inhumane regime and the judiciary was weaponised against the African majority. In democratic South Africa, justice must be done and seen to be done so that the historically disempowered can believe in the promise of a free and equitable nation. Early landmark judgments in the Constitutional Court affirmed the right of citizens to access life-saving HIV treatment, adequate water and housing. These judgements created an air of optimism that the apex court would be a faithful chamber of justice for ordinary South Africans. Another important victory for citizens was the Constitutional Court's ruling that permits civil rights organisations and individuals to present cases before it. However, the vital mission of safeguarding citizens' rights and improving fair access to justice has been frustrated by the sluggish enactment of crucial judgments on socio-economic rights, impaired state capacity, and a lack of government accountability. Recent entanglements of the Court in political wars have also negatively affected its standing and trustworthiness. The 2021 Constitutional Court's sentencing of former President Jacob Zuma to fifteen months in prison for contempt of Court without a criminal trial was celebrated by many of his political opponents. Amidst this cheer from his rivals, many ordinary South Africans saw this ruling as an ominous political weaponisation of the judiciary and a wretched betrayal of justice. Fury mounted, people protested, and over three hundred were killed in one of the worst outbreaks of civil turmoil in democratic South Africa. President Cyril Ramaphosa's Phala Phala matter was a case that tested the Constitutional Court's impartiality. After a Parliamentary Section 89 panel found prima facie evidence of misconduct by the President, he approached the Constitutional Court to review and set aside the panel's report. 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 Ramaphosa's bid was dismissed, and the President was duly directed to the High Court. Many hailed this as an expression of equality before the law in South Africa. A grand show of exercising justice without fear or favour. Few wanted to recognise this as a potentially cowardly act driven by a fear of ruling on such a sensitive matter involving the first citizen of the country. The long delay by the Constitutional Court in delivering a judgment on the EFF and ATM's challenge to the National Assembly's decision not to act on the Section 89 panel findings raises concerns about the court's impartiality, constitutional accountability, and the burning issue of delaying justice. Politically charged, expedient legal judgements set a dangerous precedent for any court of law. The contamination of a single judgement can cast doubt over the entire body of good work done by the Constitutional Court and forever tarnish its standing as an independent legal organ. When legal precepts are sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, no one wins. Justice Edwin Cameron has spoken of how the legitimacy of the judiciary rests on the faith of ordinary people that "judges will protect the weak against the strong" and "the poor against the powerful." Research conducted by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) in 2023 showed that trust in the Constitutional Court had plummeted by over 20% since 2007. This decline is echoed in Stats SA's 2023 data, which revealed that trust in the judiciary was falling "consistent with wider patterns of disillusionment in state institutions." The IJR notes that "South Africans are increasingly seeing the judiciary as part of an elite compact that does not serve their interests". The responsibility of the Constitutional Court in democratic South Africa is monumental, given the country's history of racial oppression and lingering structural inequality. Access to justice is a cardinal pillar of democracy and essential to the Constitutional promise of equality for all. Former Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke wrote how courts must never evade their responsibility as agencies of change. Justice Albie Sachs spoke of how constitutionalism is not about fine words on paper but that it is about the living pulse of justice in people's lives. Then South African President Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki is sworn in as President of the Republic of South Africa by the President of the Constitutional Court Justice Arthur Chaskalson (C) and Chief Justice Ismail Mohammed (L) at the Union Buildings in Pretoria, 16 June 1999. Image: AFP Transformative constitutionalism places the judiciary at the forefront of addressing structural inequality and fostering a new compact of social parity. However, the chasm between the lofty promises of the Constitution and the everyday injustices that still plague the majority of South Africans is vast. The real work and true triumphs of the Constitutional Court lie in delivering justice to the poor and marginalised by helping to dislodge inequality rather than perpetuate it. If it is to be a guard dog of elites rather than a guardian of the people, its promise will fade as surely as the Rainbow Nation itself. In an interview with City Press in 2020, Dr Muzi Sikhakhane SC spoke about how justice needs to be accessible to all rather than being the exclusive preserve of those who are experts in navigating the complexities of law. As the Constitutional Court steers its future it must avoid becoming a faraway fortress or an exclusive carriage of legal privilege. Extensive outreach programmes on legal rights and legal access would help boost it as an organ of people's power. The inclusion of African languages as languages of record in all courts across South Africa, including the apex court, is imperative if justice is to be done. Justice Albie Sachs spoke of how we do not want our Constitution to be 'a castle for the rich and powerful' and how rather we want it to be a refuge for the poor and marginalised. Our expectations of the judiciary may be too high. After all, the rule of law is not a precise science. Nor is it a godly creation or a holy piece of art. It is but the handiwork of men and women flawed by their specific biases, interests, and life orientations. The Constitutional Court, like our fragile democracy, is a work in progress. * Kim Heller is a political analyst and author of No White Lies: Black Politics and White Power in South Africa. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
02-06-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Western Cape High Court rules against Dr John Hlophe's appointment to Judicial Service Commission
The Western Cape High Court has delivered a significant ruling against Dr Mandlakayise John Hlophe, the impeached former judge, declaring that he cannot be part of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). The court's decision, handed down on Monday, underscores the imperative of judicial integrity and the constitutional responsibilities of South Africa's legislative body. In a judgement that has reignited debates about the judiciary's independence, the High Court found that the National Assembly (NA) had failed to appropriately exercise its discretion when approving Hlophe's appointment, an oversight that effectively undermined the credibility of the JSC. The court's order reflects a broad consensus that rigorous standards must be upheld in judicial appointments, especially for a body entrusted with safeguarding the country's constitutional commitment. The implications of the ruling are profound, as the JSC is constitutionally mandated to recommend judicial appointments and hold judges accountable. The court stated that failing to act responsibly in Hlophe's nomination could jeopardise the very independence the JSC is supposed to protect. Hlophe was nominated to the JSC last year but subsequently resigned amidst a flurry of controversy. The court explicitly stated that "Dr. Mandlakayise John Hlophe may not be designated to serve on the Judicial Services Commission in terms of section 178(1)(h) of the Constitution," marking a rare judicial rebuke of a parliamentary appointment. The judgment comes after a legal challenge by organisations including Freedom Under Law, Corruption Watch, and the Democratic Alliance (DA). These groups argued that including an impeached judge in the JSC threatened the integrity and independence of South Africa's judiciary. 'The judiciary is essential to the maintenance of constitutional democracy,' they asserted, solidifying their stance against any attempts that could compromise its impartiality. Dr Hlophe became South Africa's first judge to be impeached in its democratic era in February 2024, following charges stemming from a misconduct case dating back to 2008. He faced serious allegations of attempting to improperly influence Constitutional Court Justices Bess Nkabinde and Chris Jafta in a matter concerning then-President Jacob Zuma. After a protracted legal battle, the JSC finally recommended his removal in 2021, with Parliament voting in favour of impeachment only three years later. In response to the court's ruling, DA federal chairperson Helen Zille stated, "The High Court order to bar an impeached judge from serving on the Judicial Services Commission is a victory for the rule of law and the Constitution." She emphasised that the JSC must consist of members who are "fit and proper" and hold the public's confidence, reflecting the broader societal imperative for transparency and accountability within the judiciary. This latest development stands as a testament to the ongoing efforts to reinforce the principles of lawful governance within South Africa, propelling the conversation about judicial integrity into the national spotlight once more. DAILY NEWS
