Mbenenge tribunal: Ngoepe deems evidence by third witness prejudicial towards Mengo
The panel had the prima facie view that the evidence of the witness presented by Mbenenge’s legal counsel was irrelevant and inadmissible.
Andiswa Mengo at the Judicial Conduct Tribunal in Sandton, Johannesburg on 5 May 2025. The tribunal is investigating her sexual harassment allegations against Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge. Picture: Katlego Jiyane/EWN
JOHANNESBURG - The Judicial Conduct Tribunal may put a spanner in the works for Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge’s case in the continued misconduct probe against him.
The panel had the prima facie view that the evidence of the witness presented by Mbenenge’s legal counsel was irrelevant and inadmissible.
Stenographer in the Makhanda High Court, Unathi Sogoni, the ex-friend of high court secretary, Andiswa Mengo, is the third witness to have been called by the judge’s legal team.
Advocate Griffiths Madonsela was quizzing Sogoni on her relationship with Mengo and some of Mengo’s utterances about the relations between judges and secretaries in the division.
However, the panel took issue with this, holding the provisional view that it was hearsay evidence that held no material value in its inquiry.
Sogoni was on Friday before the fact-finding body sitting in Sandton, Johannesburg, investigating Mengo’s allegations of unwanted sexual advances made towards her by the judge president between 2021 and 2022.
Tribunal chairperson, retired Judge President Bernard Ngoepe said the panel deemed her evidence prejudicial towards Mengo.
"She cannot lead evidence on the contents of these two statements. We are of the view that large parts of it are hearsay evidence. Secondly, it’s evidence on the character of a person. Thirdly, the contents of these statements have not been put to the complainant when she testified. Fourthly, the probative value of the contents of these statements is so minimal in relation to the inquiry that we are supposed to conduct and in that sense, therefore, technically it’s irrelevant."
However, Madonsela held a different view and was presenting arguments in favour of the tribunal hearing Sogoni’s evidence.
"Ms Lisa Vetten came here and gave evidence to the effect that the complainant was subjugated because of the power positions of her as a secretary and because the JP [Judge President] was a judge and a father. She based that on theories. How can it not be relevant for the respondent to give direct evidence relating to how the complainant understood relations between her, as a secretary, and the judges?"
ALSO READ: Mbenenge tribunal: Use of emojis andtheir meaning takes centre stage