Zamikhaya Maseti
The Judicial Conduct Tribunal investigating allegations of sexual harassment brought by Judge’s Secretary Andiswa Mengo against Eastern Cape Judge President Mfanelo Selby Mbenenge has captured South Africa’s attention, with citizens closely following proceedings through television screens and digital devices.
This tribunal transcends a mere legal process; it signifies a public confrontation with entrenched power imbalances and gender vulnerabilities within our institutions.
Mengo has accused the esteemed Man of the Robe of subjecting her to nearly a year of harassment, including inappropriate advances and explicit remarks.
If these allegations are proven, Judge President Mbenenge faces the possibility of impeachment. This case has ignited a broader debate about accountability within the judiciary while exposing deeper systemic issues rooted in institutional culture and societal norms.
The Tribunal highlights the intersection of power, patriarchy, and institutional culture. South Africans are engaging with unprecedented vigour in conversations that blend legal discourse with sociological and political critique, demonstrating the necessity of interdisciplinary perspectives to unpack such a complex case.
These discussions have revealed fault lines not only within the judiciary but also in society’s approach to gender equity and justice.
Predictably, some Jurists have reacted defensively, protecting their professional terrain from what they perceive as external critique by social scientists. However, discussions of this magnitude cannot remain confined to legal formalism; they demand broader societal introspection about justice and institutional integrity. The Tribunal is not merely a legal matter—it is a test of the judiciary’s alignment with democratic principles and the public’s expectations of fairness.
Professor Mamphela Ramphele, a respected Sociologist and Activist, added depth to the debate by critiquing the defence’s questioning of Mengo, highlighting entrenched patriarchal biases and systemic hostility towards women.
Her intervention challenged South Africans to interrogate whether the judiciary aligns with equity and fairness or perpetuates the power structures it is meant to challenge. Ramphele’s critique resonated with many, emphasising the need for judicial reform to align with the principles of a democratic society.
Social media discourse, however, has largely trivialised the case. Many commentators dismissed Mengo’s allegations as opportunistic, accusing her of fabricating claims for personal gain. This narrative reflects a troubling normalisation of misogyny and an instinctive undermining of survivors of workplace harassment. Such dismissals reveal the deeply embedded societal attitudes that trivialise the experiences of women who dare to challenge powerful men.
The defence’s strategy has sought to discredit Mengo, portraying her as a deceitful opportunist. She faces immense pressure as her credibility is relentlessly attacked, revealing the systemic barriers women encounter when challenging patriarchal structures.
The defence’s aggressive posture underscores the lengths to which institutions will go to protect their own, often at the expense of justice and truth.
Equally troubling is the silence from women’s organisations.
Although the ANC Women’s League eventually issued a statement, its delayed response underscores a broader failure in advocacy for women facing institutional oppression. This silence reflects a disconnection between rhetoric and lived experiences, highlighting the gaps in systemic support for women navigating hostile workplaces.
Such organizational inertia is a betrayal of the very principles these entities claim to uphold.
Mengo’s experience must be understood within the structural realities of our society.
Navigating hierarchical power dynamics in judicial chambers while enduring her superior’s advances, her fear of job loss amid high unemployment was justifiable.
Women disproportionately bear the brunt of precarious employment, compounding their vulnerability. The judicial chambers, meant to symbolize fairness and equity, instead mirrored the patriarchal inequities that plague broader society.
Through the lenses of the Sociology of Work and Sociological Jurisprudence, Mengo’s predicament reveals systemic exploitation and gender imbalances within professional environments.
Her eventual decision to confront the harassment was an act of resilience, not capitulation. This courage shines a spotlight on the broader issues of institutional culture, gender inequality, and the challenges faced by women in male-dominated spaces.
This lens should inform retired Gauteng Judge President Bernard Ngoepe’s deliberations as he assesses the case’s probabilities and implications. Judicial officers must weigh legal merits against the broader institutional and societal consequences of their rulings.
Ngoepe’s decision will not only determine the fate of Judge President Mbenenge but will also set a precedent for how the judiciary addresses issues of gender-based harassment.
Mengo’s testimony exposes the culture within judicial chambers, where women are often objectified, and career advancement hinges on submission to inappropriate advances. Her case reflects struggles faced by countless women across sectors, revealing the pervasive nature of patriarchal oppression.
The judiciary’s role as a custodian of justice demands a reckoning with its internal contradictions and failures.
Despite the challenges, Mengo’s bravery in bringing these issues to light must be commended. Her courage will likely leave the judiciary’s reputation bruised but forces critical reflection on its inclusivity and accountability. Can the judiciary be trusted to protect the marginalized and uphold justice? This question lies at the heart of the Tribunal and its broader implications for South Africa’s democracy.
The broader lesson from this “Judiciary Gate” is that superficial changes within the judiciary are insufficient. Misogyny and gender-based violence remain deeply entrenched, demanding systemic reckoning. Beyond legal reforms, societal attitudes enabling such injustices must also change.
This case compels South Africans to confront the societal structures that perpetuate inequality and to demand meaningful transformation.
This case underscores the urgent need for stronger protections for whistleblowers and survivors of workplace harassment.
Fear of retaliation often silences victims, perpetuating cycles of abuse. Safe reporting mechanisms are essential to fostering accountability and justice. The lack of robust frameworks leaves survivors vulnerable and enables perpetrators to act with impunity.
Ultimately, this Tribunal is not just about guilt or innocence; it tests South Africa’s commitment to democratic values. Its outcome will resonate far beyond the individuals involved, shaping the nation’s trajectory in the fight for gender equity and social justice.
Mengo’s courage has compelled South Africans to confront uncomfortable truths, challenging the nation to uphold its constitutional ideals and protect the vulnerable. The Tribunal is a mirror reflecting the gaps between our democratic aspirations and the lived realities of those most marginalised. Its outcome will either reaffirm or undermine our collective commitment to justice and equality.
** Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst, and he holds a Magister Philosophiae (M.Phil.) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the erstwhile University of Port Elizabeth (UPE) now Nelson Mandela University
*** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL