Tensions Flare at Judge Makhubele's Misconduct Tribunal

The misconduct hearing for Gauteng High Court Judge Tintswalo Makhubele has once again become a contested battleground, marked by a heated exchange between the judge and the evidence leader, Dorian Paver. At the heart of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal are allegations that Judge Makhubele’s dual roles as a judge and as a chairperson of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa's (PRASA) interim board compromised the independence of the judiciary.

The proceedings, which resumed after a brief recess, saw Judge Makhubele being rigorously cross-examined by Paver on the specifics of her commencement date as a judge. Lobby group Unite Behind, the complainant in this case, insists that her judgeship began on January 1, 2018, as initially declared by the president. However, Judge Makhubele contests this, claiming her start date was June 1, 2018, when she was officially sworn in.

A decisive point in the hearing concerned an email sent by Judge President Dunstan Mlambo, in December 2017, responding to Makhubele’s request to defer her appointment. According to Mlambo, the timing of the request meant her appointment date was already set in stone. Despite this, Makhubele maintained that her position was not yet finalized, suggesting that options remained on the table.

Under the intense scrutiny of the evidence leader regarding her interpretation of Section 174 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of judges, Judge Makhubele was pressed to clarify her understanding. The judge’s repeated requests to Paver to "refresh" her memory ultimately culminated in a sharp exchange. Evidence Leader Paver accused Makhubele of displaying "signs of evasion," to which she forcefully retorted that she found his remarks to be a form of ridicule, especially when she felt it was implied she was not familiar with the constitutional section in question—a surprising insinuation given her position in the High Court.

While the tribunal’s exploration is centered on the conflict of interests potentially stemming from Judge Makhubele's dual roles, this recent interaction emphasizes the granularity with which the tribunal is examining the timeline and the conduct of the judge. The ongoing hearing is poised not only to determine Judge Makhubele's professional fate but also to hold up to scrutiny the broader ethics and procedures governing South Africa’s judicial appointments and the expected separation between governmental entities.

As the tribunal continues, it remains to be seen how these allegations and the details therein will be adjudicated, and what implications this case may have for judicial conduct and governance in South Africa.