Tribunal Set to Conclude as Judge Makhubele Faces Alleged Misconduct Accusations

The Judicial Conduct Tribunal investigating allegations of gross misconduct against Judge Nana Makhubele is approaching its conclusion. Over months of deliberation and scrutiny, the probe centered around allegations that have significantly tarnished the image of the judicial system and raised questions about governance in state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

In a saga that began with her appointment to the judiciary, Judge Makhubele is accused of sitting simultaneously as a judge and as chairperson of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) interim board. The most grave among the allegations includes her involvement in state capture through a contentious 'secret settlement deal' with the Siyaya group of companies, amounting to approximately R50-million.

The charges stem from a complaint by the activist group UniteBehind. After Makhubele's departure from PRASA, the SOE sought legal action to nullify the settlement, manifesting the shadow cast upon her actions.

During the penultimate evidentiary sessions, Judge Makhubele sought to call a single witness—a clerk from the Pretoria High Court, indicating a swift wrap-up of testimonies. The presiding retired Judge President Achmat Jappie, bestowed with the task of weaving through the complexities of the case, has scheduled further sittings with the optimism of reaching a verdict by April.

The recent tribunal sessions have not been without drama. Judge Makhubele, pitted against the evidence leader Dorian Paver in a series of tense exchanges, contested the context and her familiarity with certain documents. She maintained that her directives concerning the Siyaya matter were misunderstood, consistently arguing her delegated authority and denying sidelining the internal legal team.

The tribunal also cast a light on Makhubele's exchanges with Advocate Francois Botes SC, Siyaya's legal representative. While she denies initiating contact regarding the Siyaya claims, Paver stressed on evidence suggesting her continued correspondence, even expressing shock and disgust at a finance department's refusal to process a payment.

Despite PRASA’s vehement stance against executing the payment, the records and messages indicate a connection between Makhubele and the settlement discussions—a connection she regrets but explains as merely acknowledging updates from Botes.

Notably, her role in the PRASA board's handling of the settlement, and her interactions post her judicial appointment, have come under intense scrutiny. Makhubele deflects the questions regarding her failure to report on the Siyaya issue, citing the decision for the board to handle the response due to her imminent departure. She asserts that despite her absence, the board was well informed, yet murky details about meeting minutes and error-laden drafts persist.

As the tribunal gears up for its conclusion, Judge Makhubele remains firm in her denials, yet the allegations cast shadows of doubt over the integrity of her tenure at PRASA and her suitability as a judge. The upcoming closing arguments are anticipated with interest by legal observers and the public alike, invoking a critical moment for accountability and transparency within South African judiciary and state-owned entities.