Judicial Inquiry Grills Suspended Judge Makhubele Over PRASA Allegations

The judicial conduct inquiry into suspended Judge Nana Makhubele turned intense as cross-examination began, with evidence leader Dorian Paver rigorously questioning her reactions to the testimony of others involved. Makhubele, who served as the interim board chairperson of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA), is now at the center of an impeachment probe prompted by allegations from the civil society coalition #UniteBehind. The group claims her dual role starting January 1, 2018, as a judge while still maintaining her position at PRASA was inappropriate.

An additional accusation levelled against Makhubele involves pushing through settlements of around R59 million claims with companies in the Siyaya group, reportedly owned by Makhensa Mabunda. These settlements were purportedly made against the advice of the legal affairs division, and Mabunda is thought to be politically linked to PRASA’s ex-CEO, Lucky Montana. Claims made by Makhubele during the week of her testimony, which directly contested the evidence presented by Judge President Dunstan Mlambo and several legal professionals from PRASA, are particularly under scrutiny.

Throughout Paver’s cross-examination, Makhubele maintained that whatever her legal team was briefed on or whether she had explicitly instructed her counsel to counter specific evidence was ultimately secondary. She asserted that the tribunal was not a court per se but a fact-finding endeavor, emphasizing that the documentary evidence she supplied should be considered on its own merit. Her insistence on the relevance of her brought evidence, without having countered the testimonies, was a key point of discussion.

Makhubele refuted having branded anyone a liar directly, preferring instead to state that certain evidences were contested or untrue. This nuanced approach to the allegations and her emphasis on the word "deny" over "lie" speaks to the delicate intricacies of the legal and ethical narrative being unraveled in the inquiry.

With court adjourned until February 22, the inquiry leaves a wake of serious considerations about the administration of justice in South Africa and the standards to which public officials, particularly in the judiciary, are held.