Latest news with #MandisaMaya
IOL News
19-07-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
City of Cape Town ready to square off against National Government over Public Procurement Act
Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis Image: Supplied The Constitutional Court has opened the ring for a sparring match between the City of Cape Town and National government, by granting the City direct access to challenge the controversial Public Procurement Act, a case with potentially far-reaching consequences for the autonomy of municipalities and the future of local service delivery across South Africa. The case, which now heads to the country's highest court, revolves around both procedural and substantive concerns: that the Act was passed unlawfully, and that its implementation would severely constrain municipalities' ability to respond quickly to critical infrastructure needs. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya issued directions on 14 July, giving national government until 8 August to file its answering affidavit. The City has until 22 August to respond. The Presidency has confirmed it will make its position clear in those legal filings. Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told Weekend Argus: 'Our responses will be contained in our papers, which will be made known against the court set deadline.' For the City of Cape Town, the case is not merely a legal formality. Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis described the court's decision to grant direct access as a crucial development. 'We welcome the Concourt granting direct access to hear this vital matter. 'We believe the Act was passed unlawfully, with fatal shortcomings in public participation and parliament's procedures.' The City's application contends that the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) vote that passed the Bill was flawed because seven of nine provincial delegations did not have valid final mandates. This alone, the City argues, is grounds for the legislation to be invalidated. However, Mayor Hill-Lewis emphasised that beyond procedural defects, the impact of the law on everyday service delivery is at the heart of their opposition. 'Beyond these issues, the Act will slow down local service delivery and make it much harder for municipalities to procure quickly in response to local needs. "Local government must be able to act swiftly to resolve urgent water, sanitation, electrical, waste, and environmental issues. Instead, this bill will slow down municipalities via a massive new red tape burden and interference from other spheres of government. This is unconstitutional, and undermines local government's direct accountability to serving residents.' The Constitutional Court made a ruling this past week Image: File In a comprehensive set of written responses to Weekend Argus, the City expanded on specific operational concerns. These include restrictions on municipalities' ability to procure emergency services without central approval, and the creation of a single national Public Procurement Office (PPO), which will assume oversight of municipal procurement systems. 'Specialised services or goods might be needed for urgent repairs to water, sewer or electricity infrastructure that may pose serious environmental risk or danger to residents. In these cases for example, municipalities will no longer have the power to lawfully deviate from procurement regulations for urgent service delivery without centralised approval via the centralised national Public Procurement Office (PPO).' The City warned that if the PPO database fails or is delayed, procurement for urgent services at municipal level could grind to a halt across the country. Added to this, the legislation prevents municipalities from maintaining their own supplier databases or making payments outside the central system. These concerns are amplified by the cost and complexity of implementing the law. While the Act is not yet fully operational, the City says National Treasury is still in the process of establishing the necessary regulations and systems. 'The Act is not yet in full effect as the necessary regulations and systems are still being established by National Treasury.' Even so, the City is already anticipating the financial and bureaucratic burden that will follow if the legislation stands. 'Yes because there will likely be human resource costs and other operational expenses required to cope with the major new red tape and compliance burden.' The legislation introduces 36 new regulatory requirements still to be promulgated. Municipal officials warn these changes will create delays, legal uncertainty, and reduced flexibility to deal with time-sensitive contracts. One such example is the potential for long and complex appeals against tenders — which, under the Act, would block the finalisation of contracts until the appeals process concludes. The City says this will discourage public-private partnerships and hinder investment in infrastructure, particularly in fast-growing urban areas. Cape Town has not stood alone in its opposition. The City maintains that it has engaged every possible forum to raise its objections, including public participation processes, submissions to the South African Local Government Association (SALGA), and intergovernmental meetings. 'The City has opposed the legislation at every stage including via public participation and SALGA channels. The City is acting in the interests of all municipalities.' At the heart of the City's legal argument lies a constitutional principle: that local government is not merely a service provider for national mandates, but a constitutionally distinct and autonomous sphere with direct accountability to residents. 'As a starting point, local government has constitutional autonomy and direct obligations to residents which the bill unconstitutionally infringes, aside from any and all further negative impacts.' [email protected] Weekend Argus
The Citizen
18-07-2025
- Politics
- The Citizen
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya impersonated on social media
This is not the first time someone tried to impersonate Maya. Someone has been impersonating Chief Justice Mandisa Maya on several major social media platforms. The Office of the Chief Justice said it has become aware of fake social media accounts falsely claiming to be that of Maya. 'We wish to categorically state that Chief Justice Maya does not have any personal or official social media accounts on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter/X, or TikTok'. Warning It warned that impersonating a judicial offence is a criminal offense. 'It is not advisable to engage with any social media accounts/profiles claiming to be that of Chief Justice Maya' The office urged South Africans that if they receive any communication purported to be from the Chief Justice, the authenticity of which seems questionable, the legitimacy thereof may be confirmed by contacting Maya's office. ALSO READ: Meta complies, shuts down Instagram accounts and WhatsApp channels posting sexual content of SA school children Not the first time This is not the first time someone has tried to impersonate Maya. In March last year, Maya's office said an individual had sent a WhatsApp message to an official requesting contact numbers of Judges. 'The mobile number from which the message came is 072 324 9318 and is registered on the WhatsApp application as belonging to 'Chief Justice MM Maya'. The public is warned not to fall prey to this impersonator and needs to be aware that impersonating a Judicial Officer is a criminal offence.' Police The Office of the Chief Justice said the matter was reported to the South African Police Services (Saps). 'Members of the public and media are requested to contact the OCJ to verify the authenticity of any communication, directive, article, or social media post that purports to be that of a Judge.' Deputy Chief Justice Meanwhile, Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo is likely to be the next Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. This follows the Judicial Service Commission's (JSC) decision earlier this month to recommend Mlambo for the position. The recommendation comes after a public interview process, which started in Sandton for the position following President Cyril Ramaphosa's nomination of four candidates for the post after consulting the JSC and the leaders of political parties represented in the National Assembly (NA). ALSO READ: Ramaphosa nominates Mandisa Maya as SA's next Chief Justice
IOL News
16-07-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
'The judiciary must accept that its integrity is earned through fearless accountability'
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya speaking at the 30th anniversarycelebrations of the Constitutional Court. The judiciary in South Africa often conducts itself as though it exists outside the moral and political realities of the society it serves, projecting an image of unassailable integrity, as if immune to the corruption that permeates other sectors, says the writer. Image: Jairus Mmutle/GCIS Clyde N.S. Ramalaine In democratic theory, the judiciary is often revered as the last line of defence against tyranny, arbitrariness, and impunity. Yet in practice, no institution should be considered immune to the social and political decay it adjudicates. The recent response by the Office of Chief Justice Mandisa Maya to explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, offers a revealing window into the judiciary's posture when confronted with internal accountability. Rather than welcoming scrutiny as a path to institutional purification, the OCJ's letter adopts a tone of cold proceduralism and veiled indignation, positioning itself as the aggrieved party in the face of whistleblowing. This reaction, cloaked in appeals to public confidence and formal reporting channels, exposes a deeper and more precarious trend: a judiciary increasingly allergic to critique, retreating into a defensive reflex that masquerades as integrity. In this regard, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya appears to continue the defensive trajectory set by her predecessor, former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, who became increasingly known for his political interventions, particularly in moments when critical public commentary about the judiciary was raised. Zondo notably demanded an apology from politician Lindiwe Sisulu after she exercised poetic licence in her critique of the judiciary, drawing on a provocative phrase borrowed from American racial discourse, 'house and field niggers', to characterise perceived divisions and loyalties within South Africa's judicial ranks. The response by the Office of Chief Justice Mandisa Maya to Lt. General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's allegations is revealing, less for what it explicitly states and more for the posture it adopts. At face value, the OCJ's demand for 'credible evidence' and its warning that 'unsubstantiated claims can severely erode public confidence' in democratic institutions appear procedurally sound and appropriately cautious. However, when situated within the broader political climate and the weight of the allegations, this letter reads more like a strategic act of institutional defensiveness than a sincere commitment to truth-seeking or democratic transparency. The judiciary, by asserting that such allegations 'erode public confidence,' effectively reverses the burden, indirectly attempting to discipline the whistleblower rather than reflect critically on the legitimacy of the concerns raised. This is problematic. Mkhwanazi did not offer vague or populist sentiment; he made direct claims about the dismantling of police investigative structures and the shielding of political interests, naming Minister Senzo Mchunu and implicating parts of the justice system. These are not casual assertions; they are whistleblowing interventions made by a senior law enforcement officer in a context of systemic rot. The OCJ office will forgive us for deducing from its letter that the judiciary's tone, however, appears less concerned with institutional accountability than with preserving its image. Moreover, the suggestion that Mkhwanazi must use "formal reporting mechanisms" reveals an ironic detachment from the very reality he is exposing. If the allegation is that formal structures themselves are compromised, what good is a reporting mechanism that routes evidence through those same channels? This response seems to ignore the foundational lesson from South Africa's recent history of state capture: whistleblowers often had to go public precisely because formal structures had become captured, bureaucratised, or unresponsive. 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 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. Next Stay Close ✕ Additionally, the judiciary's statement fails to acknowledge its embeddedness within a broader political system. It repeats the often-invoked but increasingly hollow idea of judicial impartiality, positioning the courts as neutral custodians of justice while ignoring the growing public scepticism about the politicisation of judicial appointments, inconsistent prosecutorial outcomes, and institutional inertia in high-profile cases. If the judiciary wishes to preserve public trust, it must do more than demand silence in the absence of documentation; it must demonstrate that it takes all allegations seriously, not just those that are politically convenient. Finally, the tone of the letter, couched in institutional concern, belies a deeper anxiety. The judiciary, like all organs of state, is not beyond scrutiny. South Africa's democratic ethos does not grant sacred status to any sector. Rather than deflect, the judiciary should embrace the opportunity to investigate itself, to reaffirm its legitimacy through transparency, and to actively protect whistleblowers like Mkhwanazi, whose bravery may be unsettling but whose voice is necessary. To underscore the judiciary as the full expression of a South African society, we only have to remind ourselves of a recent interview conducted by the Judicial Services Commission. Judge President L.T. Tlaletsi, during his recent appearance before the Judicial Service Commission, initially downplayed the relevance of the judiciary's newly developed sexual harassment policy by suggesting that sexual harassment was not a significant issue within the judiciary. However, his stance was swiftly challenged by Commissioner Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, who pointed out the glaring dissonance in such a claim. Ngcukaitobi highlighted that everyone present at the proceedings was well aware of incidents of inappropriate and unacceptable conduct among members of the judiciary, even if such cases had not been formally reported. This exchange not only revealed a concerning gap between leadership perception and institutional reality but also underscored the culture of silence that often surrounds misconduct in judicial spaces. If sexual harassment, despite its denial, is indeed present, then it becomes even more untenable to suggest that the judiciary is immune to other forms of wrongdoing, such as corruption and criminal collusion. The moment served as a powerful reminder that institutional integrity cannot be preserved through denial or procedural formalism but through transparent acknowledgement, accountability, and reform. The judiciary in South Africa often conducts itself as though it exists outside the moral and political realities of the society it serves, projecting an image of unassailable integrity, as if immune to the corruption that permeates other sectors. This perception is not only misleading but fundamentally unsustainable. Judges are not chosen from a separate moral universe; they are products of the same society, appointed through political processes, often by ruling party leaders. Many have never built independent or successful legal practices, opting instead for judicial office as a stable career path offering pension security. Their elevation depends on interviews before the Judicial Service Commission, an inherently political body. In a country where corruption is endemic and where no institution is beyond scrutiny, the notion that the judiciary is somehow exempt from compromise defies logic and reality. When Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi bravely tells the nation that politicians, the police, and the judiciary form part of South Africa's crime problem, it goes without saying that, as an admitted attorney, he would not make such serious allegations recklessly or without a substantive basis. It is therefore untenable for the public to be duped into imagining the judiciary, a present and functioning sector of society, as somehow exempt from such implications. On the contrary, any such allegation, regardless of the target, warrants full and impartial investigation. To shield the judiciary from public accountability based on presumed moral superiority is to ignore its embeddedness in the very social fabric it is meant to adjudicate. If transformation and transparency are to be pursued meaningfully, the judiciary cannot be treated as sacrosanct. The critical question remains: Does the OCJ's response genuinely inspire confidence in whistleblowers like Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi, or does it serve as a warning to future truth-tellers to remain silent? By focusing on the supposed dangers of "unsubstantiated allegations" rather than the urgent substance of Mkhwanazi's claims, the judiciary appears more concerned with reputational management than institutional accountability. This defensive posture not only undermines Mkhwanazi's credibility but also sends a discouraging signal to others within the state apparatus who may be privy to corruption or criminal collusion. If the judiciary cannot distinguish between malicious slander and principled whistleblowing, especially from a senior officer with legal training, then it risks reinforcing a culture of fear, deterring future disclosures, and eroding the very democratic values it claims to protect. I dare assert the statement issued by the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) does little to inspire confidence in Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi, or in any future whistleblowers who may come forward with uncomfortable truths about systemic corruption. Rather than signalling a willingness to engage the substance of Mkhwanazi's claims with seriousness and impartiality, the OCJ adopts a defensive tone that shifts focus to the potential damage of "unsubstantiated allegations" on public trust. This framing subtly disciplines the whistleblower while evading institutional introspection. Instead of reinforcing a culture of accountability, the OCJ's response risks entrenching the very culture of silence and fear that has long discouraged insiders from exposing misconduct. If the judiciary responds to courageous disclosures with procedural gatekeeping and implied censure, it sends a chilling message to potential whistleblowers: speak out, and you will be met with institutional rebuke, not support. Such a stance is fundamentally at odds with the values of transparency, justice, and democratic renewal. South Africa does not need another mythologised sector draped in self-righteous untouchability. If the judiciary is to maintain public confidence, it must do so not through declarations of purity but through demonstrable transparency and an unwavering commitment to introspection. When Lt. General Mkhwanazi calls out institutional decay, including within the justice system, the appropriate institutional response is not deflection or bureaucratic indignation, but a willingness to interrogate uncomfortable truths. Just as the judiciary cannot claim to be free from the scourge of sexual harassment, as the recent exchange between Judge President Tlaletsi and Commissioner Ngcukaitobi made clear, so too can it not claim exemption from the possibilities of corruption, bias, or systemic failure. Public trust is not sustained by denial, but by the courage to confront complicity. To restore what remains of that trust, the judiciary must accept that its integrity is not innate; it must be earned, preserved, and proven through fearless accountability. * Clyde N.S. Ramalaine is a theologian, political analyst, lifelong social and economic justice activist, published author, poet, and freelance writer. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
The Herald
11-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald
Chief justice asks Mkhwanazi and Masemola to back up allegations
The acting secretary-general of the Office of the Chief Justice has officially requested national police commissioner Gen Fannie Masemola and KwaZulu-Natal provincial commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi to submit evidence supporting the allegations made by Mkhwanazi on Sunday. Mkhwanazi was also urged to lodge formal complaints with the Judicial Service Commission and/or the Magistrates' Commission, where appropriate. Chief justice Mandisa Maya, said the judiciary stands firm in its commitment to accountability and the rule of law. 'If any person, including Lt Gen Mkhwanazi, has credible evidence of unlawful or unethical conduct committed by a member of the judiciary, they are urged to report such matters to the legally mandated structures of the state. Unsubstantiated allegations, however, regrettably undermine the administration of justice and weaken public trust in our institutions, which are essential to upholding our constitutional democracy,' Maya said. Mkhwanazi made damning allegations against police minister Senzo Mchunu on Sunday. He accused the minister of interfering with police investigations and of being an associate of people with questionable characters. He claimed that in 2024, a request was received from the Gauteng Organised Crime Investigation Unit for help in dismantling an organised crime syndicate operating across the country and controlled from Gauteng. Investigations revealed that the syndicate involved politicians, members of law enforcement (including SAPS, metro police and correctional services), prosecutors and members of the judiciary and was being controlled by a drug cartel in collaboration with certain businesspeople. Reacting to the allegations, the judiciary said it noted the remarks with serious concern. 'Such claims, made without substantiation, are extremely damaging to public confidence in the independence and integrity of our courts — a fundamental pillar of our constitutional democracy,' the Office of the Chief Justice said in a statement. The office said judicial officers were bound by the judicial oath or solemn affirmation of office to uphold and protect the constitution and the human rights entrenched in it, and to administer justice to all people alike without fear, favour or prejudice, as per the constitution and the law. 'As such, any suggestion of impropriety within the judiciary is treated with the utmost gravity. These bodies are constitutionally and statutorily mandated to investigate complaints against judicial officers. The JSC derives its authority from Section 178 of the constitution, read with the Judicial Service Commission Act, 1994 (Act 9 of 1994). Furthermore, the Magistrates Commission operates under the Magistrates Act, 1993 (Act 90 of 1993). Both institutions have well-established mechanisms to address allegations of misconduct, ensuring due process and fairness,' reads the statement. Reaffirming its dedication to justice, transparency and the principles enshrined in the constitution, the Office of the Chief Justice said should any judicial officer be found to have acted unlawfully or unethically, appropriate action must be taken without hesitation. TimesLIVE
News24
02-07-2025
- Politics
- News24
JSC to interview three senior judges for Deputy Chief Justice position
JSC/X From 2 to 3 July, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) will convene interviews for the Deputy Chief Justice position. The position has been vacant since Chief Justice Mandisa Maya assumed her role at the apex of the judiciary on 1 September 2024.
