Makhubele faces off with evidence leader in her misconduct hearing

JOHANNESBURG - Things have again become heated at embattled Gauteng High Court Judge Tintswalo Makhubele’s misconduct hearing, with an evidence leader accusing her of being evasive and the judge slapping back that he’s ridiculing her.

A Judicial Conduct Tribunal is currently probing allegations that Makhubele undermined the independence of the judiciary by wearing two hats at the same time; that of a judge, and that of the chairperson of the interim board of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa.

Proceedings resumed on Wednesday morning after a short break, with Makhubele under cross-examination by evidence leader Dorian Paver.

A key issue is when Makhubele became a judge - with the complainant in the case, lobby group Unite Behind, putting the date on 1 January 2018 as per the president’s initial declaration; but Makhubele putting it on 1 June of that year when she took her oath of office.

ALSO READ:

• Judge Makhubele represents herself in court amid misconduct allegations
• Tribunal probing gross misconduct allegations against Judge Makhubele once again halted

Paver has been questioning her about an email she received from Judge President Dunstan Mlambo in December 2017, in response to a request she had made to defer her appointment.

Mlambo had said as a result of the delayed nature of the request, her appointment date had already been determined but Makhubele insisted the “door was still open”.

When she was questioned further about her understanding of Section 174 of the Constitution, which deals with the appointment of judges, she repeatedly asked Paver to “refresh” her memory - which eventually led to this exchange.

Paver: "Judge I don’t want to accuse you of being evasive but I’m afraid you are steadily showing signs of evasion …" 

Makhubekle: "But you are ridiculing me, Mr Paver …"

Paver: "I’m not ridiculing you …"

Makhubele: "How do you tell me you are surprised I don't know that section? I am a judge of the High Court is that not a ridicule?"

The hearing continues.