Tribunal must decide who is telling the truth - Mlambo or Makhubele
Final oral arguments heard on whether Makhubele is guilty of gross misconduct for allegedly chairing PRASA board after being appointed judge
Final oral arguments are being heard in the disciplinary tribunal of Judge Nana Makhubele. Archive photo: Masego Mafata
- Makhubele is facing possible impeachment following allegations she sat as interim board chair at PRASA after being appointed as a judge.
- During Tribunal hearings she contradicted the testimony of her boss, Judge Dunstan Mlambo.
- It is alleged she orchestrated a “secret settlement” of R56-million with state capture-implicated company Siyaya.
Suspended Gauteng judge Nana Makhubele had, by implication, attacked the honesty and credibility of the two most senior judges in the province in an attempt to extricate herself from “the mess” she had put herself in.
This was the submission of evidence leader Advocate Dorian Paver before the Judicial Conduct Tribunal probing allegations of gross misconduct against her.
Makhubele is facing possible impeachment following a complaint by #UniteBehind in January 2019 that not only was she appointed as a judge at the same time that she was chair of the PRASA interim board, but she had also involved herself in state capture in connection with matters involving the Siyaya group of companies. It is alleged she authorised a “secret settlement deal” for R56-million in payments from PRASA to Siyaya while sidelining the internal legal team.
After hearing evidence over several months, the Judicial Conduct Tribunal (JCT), chaired by retired Judge Achmat Jappie, is wrapping up its business. Final oral arguments commenced on Monday.
While Makhubele did not challenge the evidence of her boss Judge President Dunstan Mlambo - who was supported by an affidavit from his deputy, Judge Aubrey Ledwaba - Paver said she had then contradicted their version.
The tribunal, he said, would have to make credibility findings because of these two conflicting versions.
“But you are seasoned judges,” he said to Jappie and Tribunal member Judge Seun Moshidi. “You know the consequences of not putting a version to a witness under cross examination. And we are not dealing with a layperson. She is a judge of the high court. The inference is inescapable.”
Mlambo, in his evidence, said after Makhubele failed to arrive at work on 1 January 2018, he had summoned her to his chambers. Ledwaba was present.
He had to extract from her the fact that she was chairing the interim board of PRASA. Makhubele insisted she could not resign because “she did not want to disappoint the minister”.
But in her evidence, Makhubele claimed she had a long-standing agreement with Mlambo - even before she was interviewed for judicial appointment by the Judicial Service Commission in October 2017 - that she could only take up her position later in 2018.
She said the meeting in January “never happened”. She eventually took up judicial office in June 2018.
As Advocate Michael Bishop for #UniteBehind said in his later argument on Monday:
“One witness told the truth and one did not.”
Bishop, as did Paver, argued that Mlambo’s version should be accepted.
“There is no incentive for the Judge-President (and Ledwaba) to lie. There is an incentive for Judge Makhubele to lie,” Bishop said.
He argued that in law, Makhubele had been appointed as a judge from 1 January. The fact that at the meeting in mid-January, she refused to take the oath, and start work, meant she was guilty of gross misconduct.
Paver said when considering whether or not Makhubele was guilty of gross misconduct, the Tribunal had to ask itself the same questions as had been posed in the run-up to the impeachments of now former judges John Hlophe and Nkola Motata.
These would be: What would be the attitude of an ordinary person if he or she was to be tried before them? Had the conduct threatened public confidence in the judiciary?
Makhubele, he said, had been evasive, and verging on aggressive at times during the hearing.
Not only was she guilty of gross misconduct, he said, but also of gross incompetence.
Questionable conduct as PRASA chair
Regarding her conduct at PRASA, Paver said again, Makhubele had blamed her previous lawyer for not putting questions to witnesses during cross examination.
In fact, he said, “this had become her mantra”.
He said the evidence showed her direct involvement in the settlement of the Siyaya claims, even though she had no authority.
There was evidence of dozens of WhatsApp messages and some meetings with Advocate Francois Botes, who was acting for Siyaya. At the same time and in contrast, she only had one meeting with PRASA’s internal legal team which had been defending the claims.
The legal team only found out about the settlement when demands for payment were made by Siyaya.
PRASA also suffered a financial crisis in March 2018, when the Sheriff seized R56-million from PRASA’s bank account to meet Siyaya’s claims.
However, PRASA’s legal team successfully applied to rescind the judgments.
“That this money was not lost to the public purse was no thanks to her (Makhubele). The Sheriff held the money in his bank account, otherwise it would have been lost,” Paver said.
On the events at PRASA, Adv Bishop said there was no evidence of corruption. But that did not matter, and whether Makhabele had acted with the ulterior purpose of reckless disregard, it amounted to gross misconduct.
“I don’t know why she did what she did. Whatever the explanation, she has shown she is not the type of person the public will have confidence in to perform as a judge.”
Makhubele’s legal team is expected to argue on Tuesday morning.
Next: Government contractor misses yet another deadline on R123-million Gauteng school
Previous: We should act against lawyers who undermine the Constitution
© 2024 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.
We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.