THE MAKHUBELE J CASE

LETHAL POINTS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE MAKHUBELE J CASE, TO WIT: THE TRIBUNAL THAT TRIED AND FOUND AGAINST HER WAS BOTH ILLEGALLY AND CORRUPTLY CONSTITUTED

Original long hyperlinks in the PDF substituted here with shortened links for better formatting.

1. In its report condemning Makhubele J on 9 January 2025, the Judicial Conduct Tribunal stated in paragraph 12:

On 18 February 2021, pursuant to section 22 of the Act, the Chief Justice appointed […] and Ms N Maduba-Silevu as members of the Tribunal.

(My square bracket ellipsis for relevance above and below.) The decision is online at bit.ly/4rilgC9.

2. Section 22 of the Judicial Service Commission Act provides:

22. Composition of Tribunal
(1) A Tribunal comprises—
(a) two judges, one of whom must be designated by the Chief Justice as the Tribunal President; and
(b) one person whose name appears on the list maintained in terms of section 23(1).
(2) At least one member of every Tribunal must be a woman.
(3) […]

3. The mandatory ‘woman’ on the Tribunal, prescribed by section 22(2), was Noxolo Maduba-Silevu. In other words, the lady qualified as the compulsory female member of the Tribunal.

4. For reasons canvassed below, however, I had reason to doubt that Ms Maduba-Silevu more importantly satisfied the qualifying requirement of section 22(1)(b), namely that her ‘name appears on the list maintained in terms of section 23(1)’.

5. Section 23(1) prescribes:

23. Non-judicial members of tribunals
(1) The Executive Secretary must, in the prescribed manner and form, establish and maintain a list of persons who are not judicial officers and who have been approved by the Chief Justice, acting with the concurrence of the Minister, as being suitable to serve on Tribunals in terms of section 22(1)(b).

6. So on 1 July 2024, I tested whether Ms Silevu-Maduba was qualified under section 23(1) to serve as a member of the Tribunal convened to try Makhubele J, by way of a records request made under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (‘PAIA’).

7. Items 17-24 in my list of requested records are relevant in the matter. These are:

17. Attorney Noxolo Maduba-Silevu’s appointment to the Judicial Conduct Tribunal established on 14 April 2021 to try the complaints against Nana Makhubele J lodged with the JCC by the NGO #UniteBehind.³⁵

35 Per ‘Timeline of Makhubele Tribunal’ published by the NGO Judges Matter on its website at: bit.ly/4rtTx1p.

The JSC is currently opposing Brink’s High Court application for an order compelling its compliance with his PAIA request for certain specified records concerning (i) Ms Maduba-Silevu’s appointment in 2012 to the first Judicial Conduct Tribunal appointed to try the Constitutional Court’s complaint against Hlophe JP (as he then was), (ii) his objection to her appointment (on the grounds of her ‘inappropriate sexual relationship’ with Mlambo JP, per Hlophe JP (as he then was) to Brink by phone), and (iii) her resignation in response to Hlophe JP’s objection (‘to avoid an unseemly scandal’, per then JSC secretary Sello Chiloane to Brink by phone).

The two obviously spurious, incompetent, contradictory, illegal and unconstitutional grounds that the JSC has advanced in its answering affidavit to justify furtively suppressing these records are (a) that they’re ‘privileged’, but PAIA doesn’t contemplate and doesn’t allow any such a ground for refusing access to a public body record, and the word appears nowhere in the Act, and also no litigation was pending between Brink and the JSC when the records were requested; and (b) that Brink’s request for these records is ‘vexatious’, but on the contrary and quite patently, the records request and its implications couldn’t be more serious for the integrity of the JCC’s disciplinary processes, both past and pending, and of Mlambo JP’s occult machinations in corrupting them.

18. The JSC’s prior invitation to Ms Maduba-Silevu to join the said Tribunal, or her application to the JSC to join it.

19. Any commendation by Mlambo JP or other person of Ms Maduba-Silevu as a suitable prospective member of the said Tribunal or of such Tribunals generally.

20. Prior to her appointment to the Tribunal, Ms Maduba-Silevu’s application to be included on the JSC’s list of suitable Tribunal members maintained by the JSC’s Executive Secretary under section 23(1) of the JSC Act, alternately the recommendation by Mlambo JP or other person that she be so included.

21. Ms Maduba-Silevu’s listing per section 23(1) of the JSC Act as a person ‘suitable to serve on Tribunals’.

22. The record of the Chief Justice’s approval of Ms Maduba-Silevu under section 23(1) of the JSC Act as a suitable person to serve on a JCC Tribunal.

23. The record of the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services’ concurrence under section 23(1) of the JSC Act in the Chief Justice’s approval of Ms Maduba-Silevu as a person suitable for appointment to a JCC Tribunal.

24. Any and all correspondence between Makhubele J’s legal representatives and the JSC and/or Ms Maduba-Silevu, and vice versa, concerning the latter’s suitability to act on the Tribunal trying Makhubele J and/or her relationship with Mlambo JP and/or the circumstances in which or reasons why she’d abruptly resigned from her senior position at LASA on its national executive management committee ahead of her trial before a disciplinary enquiry on a gross misconduct charge, with dishonesty comprising a central alleged element.36

36 A couple of months after which she was appointed to the first Tribunal convened to try Hlophe JP on the Constitutional Court’s ethics complaint against him; see above footnote.

8. The JSC responded to my PAIA request the following month.

Request number 17: The appointment letter is attached herein as marked H.

Request number 18-24: We do not have a record of any of the requested items see the affidavit by the secretariat.

9. Ms Maduba-Silevu’s ‘appointment letter’ by then-chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, provided to me by the JSC in response to my ‘Request number 17’, is online at bit.ly/4imjnzW. The JSC’s ‘PAIA response to Mr Brink’ among the documents is at bit.ly/4hq6e83

10. So according to the JSC, it has no records of:

21. Ms Maduba-Silevu’s listing per section 23(1) of the JSC Act as a person ‘suitable to serve on Tribunals’.

22. The record of the Chief Justice’s approval of Ms Maduba-Silevu under section 23(1) of the JSC Act as a suitable person to serve on a JCC Tribunal.

11. It follows that Ms Maduba-Silevu’s appointment was grossly irregular and unlawful for want of compliance with those three essential requirements prescribed by section 23(1).

12. And since Ms Maduba-Silevu was legally disqualified from serving on the Tribunal appointed to try Makhubele J – because she hadn’t been listed as a suitable person to serve on any Tribunals in general, and hadn’t been approved as such by the Chief Justice and by the Minister too – her appointment to the Tribunal by Mogoeng CJ was legally null and void.

13. Having been illegally constituted by including a person not on the section 23(1) list, and not approved for inclusion on the list by the Chief Justice and the Minister, the Tribunal that tried and condemned Makhubele J was fatally non-quorate, considering the composition requirements of section 22(1).

14. Not only was the Tribunal unlawfully constituted by including an unqualified person as a member, and was therefore non-quorate, exposing its findings against Makhubele J to review and setting aside on that ground alone, even worse, and very much worse: there is every indication that the Tribunal was corruptly constituted due to the occult interference of then Gauteng Division High Court Judge President Dunstan Mlambo to Makhubele J’s extreme prejudice.

15. JSC secretary Mbali Songca confirms that the JSC has no records of:

18. The JSC’s prior invitation to Ms Maduba-Silevu to join the said Tribunal, or her application to the JSC to join it.

19. Any commendation by Mlambo JP or other person of Ms Maduba-Silevu as a suitable prospective member of the said Tribunal or of such Tribunals generally.

16. Which means (a) Ms Silevu-Maduba didn’t ask the JSC to get her onto the Tribunal; (b) the JSC never invited her to join it; and (c) no one openly recommended her for appointment to it.

17. Clearly, therefore, somebody manoeuvred behind the scenes to get Ms Maduba-Silevu appointed to that Tribunal – even though she was completely unqualified under section 23(1) to serve on it, because (a) she wasn’t on the prescribed list of persons suitable for appointment to serve on Tribunals; (b) hadn’t been approved by the Chief Justice as a person suitable for appointment to serve on Tribunals; and (c) hadn’t been approved by the Minister as a person suitable for appointment to Tribunals.

18. This raises the question: Who was behind and who fixed Ms Maduba-Silevu’s appointment by then-Chief Justice Mogoeng to the Tribunal in the Makhubele J case? And why?

19. About ten years ago, I made contact with a former national management executive committee member (‘the executive’) of Legal Aid South Africa (‘LASA’) regarding my dispute over its national office’s corrupt, unauthorised, unrecorded, objectively falsely explained and also contradictorily explained, illegal backroom abortion of my recruitment to a top legal specialist professional post for which I’d been recommended in glowing terms following my interview, along with the other shortlisted candidates, by a selection panel of LASA’s most senior lawyers in the region.

20. Part of my beef was the many criminal lies that then-LASA Board chairman Dunstan Mlambo JP (as he then was; now DCJ) told the Justice Minister and then the Justice Portfolio Committee in secret ‘confidential’ reports made to deceive and defraud them, and thereby frustrate and pervert their separately and independently instituted ministerial and parliamentary enquiries into (a) the top-level, provably dishonestly covered recruitment corruption at LASA that I’d brought to their attention, by escalating my complaint about it to these highest national executive and oversight authorities, and (b) LASA’s persistent illegal and unconstitutional refusals to comply with my duly made PAIA requests probing this recruitment corruption, in furtherance of LASA’s disintegrating cover-up of it.

21. I pause to highlight that Constitutional Court Justice Beth Nkabinde (ret.) and Supreme Court of Appeal Court Justice Ephraim Makgoka serving on the Appeal Committee of the JSC’s Judicial Conduct Committee (‘JCC’) later found my complaints about Mlambo DCJ’s habitual criminal mendacity to have been well made on the documentary and other evidence I’d adduced in support of my criminal and other capital charges against him, and recommended that he be summoned to answer them before a Tribunal. See bit.ly/45HO7Hn.

22. The executive told me of Mlambo DCJ’s utter immorality and corruption in his personal-professional life, and that he habitually traded personal for professional favours with the ladies, namely intimacy after hours for career advancement during the day.

23. Indeed, a former senior financial officer at LASA later described the organisation to me as ‘the Devil's playground’ while Mlambo JP chaired it, and that he famously ‘ran Legal Aid like his bedroom’. Also, hotly relevantly, that he’d fixed one of his mistresses at LASA a permanent appointment as a judge – her name and Division supplied to me.

24. And another source within the judiciary reported another similar case in precise detail – her name and Division also supplied to me.

25. See further: bit.ly/43iua7j.

26. The executive told me that Mlambo DCJ’s corrupt personal proclivity in this regard was notorious throughout LASA from the lowest to the highest ranks. This included one specific case in his direct experience, of which he had direct personal knowledge: He related how after Mlambo JP travelled up to his Justice Centre to give a talk to his staff, and lodging nearby for the weekend, he’d ordered him right afterwards to promote a certain junior female employee in his charge to a specific senior position (her first name supplied to me). The post didn’t even exist at that Centre, he told me, so wasn’t vacant and hadn’t been advertised, much less duly interviewed for. Drawing the obvious conclusion about Mlambo JP’s after-hours entertainment by the young lady, against the background of what he already knew about Mlambo JP’s private habits, the executive complained to LASA’s CEO and its HR Executive of this gross irregularity, but was brushed off and later squeezed out.

27. The executive told me that Mlambo JP’s longer-term intimate relationship with Ms Maduba (her single surname before her marriage) was well known to other LASA staff, and had depressed morale at the Justice Centre he led at the time.

28. The executive told me that after Ms Maduba’s meteoric rise though LASA’s management ranks, repeatedly given a leg up by her said paramour on her way into its national management executive committee, she eventually resigned abruptly one step ahead of a disciplinary enquiry on a charge involving gross dishonesty in a recruitment process she’d corrupted for the benefit of a friend of hers.

29. Irrespective of this crassly unethical women’s obvious moral unsuitability as a member of any Tribunal to try any judge, especially for an alleged ethical infraction, Mlambo JP shortly afterwards fixed his now unemployed lady-friend an appointment to the first Tribunal convened to try Hlophe JP (as he then was) on the Constitutional Court’s well-known charge against him – from which Tribunal she immediately resigned when Hlophe JP objected to her appointment on account of her intimate relationship with Mlambo JP, of which irregular connection between the sheets he was well aware, like just about everyone.

30. The executive quite insistently urged me to independently investigate and verify for myself the circumstance in which Ms Maduba had been appointed to the Tribunal in the Hlophe JP case, and why she’d so oddly suddenly resigned from it.

31. So I addressed a PAIA request to the Department of Justice (‘DoJ’) in August 2016, for inter alia the following records:

4. Concerning attorney Noxolo Maduba:

4.1. her appointment by the Judicial Service Commission in February 2013 to a tribunal to try the charge against Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe that he improperly tried influencing the decisions of Constitutional Court Justices Jafta and Nkabinde in a case pending before them;

4.2. any and all commendations of her for appointment to the tribunal;

4.3. Hlophe JP’s (and/or other) complaint(s) against her appointment to the tribunal;

4.4. her response, if any, to the complaint(s); and,

4.5. her dismissal or resignation from the tribunal.

32. The DoJ transferred my request to the JSC, in response to which then-JSC Secretary Sello Chiloane telephoned me on 14 November 2016, contending that all the above records were hit by section 12(d) of PAIA, so I wasn’t entitled to them and wasn’t going to get them. (The section provides: ‘This Act does not apply to a record— relating to a decision […] regarding the nomination, selection or appointment of a Judicial officer or any other person by the Judicial Service Commission in terms of any law.’)

33. During his call to me, though, Secretary Chiloane told me that he recalled the matter, and that as he remembered it Ms Maduba had indeed resigned from her appointment to the Tribunal, and that she’d done so ‘to avoid an unseemly scandal’ (his exact words).

34. Secretary Chiloane promised to respond to the rest of my request, but despite a reminder the balance of the records never arrived. The request is accessible at bit.ly/47VXzHP.

35. I didn’t agree that my request for those records was hit by that section, but didn’t proceed to sue for them as I otherwise would have done, because I’d just been attacked ten days earlier with other litigation to try shutting me down, and I had to apply all my available time and energy to defeating it – successfully in the result – with massive answering papers running into about ten volumes (see bit.ly/4ovMnIi), plus I had to defend myself the following year against another attack, this time to destroy my professional standing (see bit.ly/4mDRqFL), both attacks maliciously contrived to silence and annihilate me as witness to and complainant about Mlambo JP’s documented criminal corruption, in the now standard routine of assassinating whistleblowers, witnesses, and complainants in high-level corruption cases in the New South Africa.

36. In March 2019, I returned to exploring the matter again with another PAIA request, now addressed directly to the JSC, inter alia for the following records:

7. Mlambo JP’s nomination of attorney Noxolo Maduba for appointment to the said tribunal in 2012/2013. (Note: Only the part of the record reflecting the identity of Mlambo JP as the person who nominated Maduba for appointment is required; the text of his commendation of her in the nomination, i.e. its contents, hit by section 12 of PAIA, may be redacted.)

8. Maduba’s letter of appointment to the said Tribunal in or about February 2013.

9. Hlophe JP’s (and/or other) subsequent objection(s) to her appointment.

10. Maduba’s response, if any, to the objection(s).

11. Maduba’s letter of resignation from the Tribunal.

37. Again the JSC failed to respond, so I sought the support of the SAHRC’s PAIA Unit, responsible at the time for monitoring and reporting public body PAIA compliance or delinquency, and for assisting requesters like me; but the SAHRC ignored my complaint and did nothing about it. My complaint with my PAIA request annexed to it is accessible at bit.ly/4p0D8PX.

38. In September 2021, I delivered yet another PAIA request to the JSC in which I requested, inter alia:

36. Attorney Noxolo Maduba’s application in 2013 to be included on the JSC’s list of suitable Tribunal members maintained by the JSC’s Executive Secretary under section 23(1) of the JSC Act.

NOTE: Section 23(1) of the Act prescribes: ‘The Executive Secretary must, in the prescribed manner and form, establish and maintain a list of persons who are not judicial officers and who have been approved by the Chief Justice, acting with the concurrence of the Minister, as being suitable to serve on Tribunals in terms of section 22(1)(b).’

37. Any and all commendations of the said Ms Maduba, including any by then LASA Board chairperson Mlambo JP, as a person ‘suitable to serve on Tribunals’ constituted to try judges on impeachable misconduct charges, especially where their integrity has been placed in issue.

NOTE: In December 2012, Ms Maduba resigned from her employment by LASA as a Regional Operations Executive on LASA’s national management executive committee following an internal investigation of recruitment corruption in her region. This was reported in the media at the time, and mentioned by Ms Maduba herself in a public statement she made.

38. The list prescribed by section 23(1) of the JSC Act in 2013, updated to include Ms Maduba as a person ‘suitable to serve on Tribunals’.

39. The record of the Chief Justice’s approval of Ms Maduba under section 23(1) of the JSC Act as a suitable person to serve on a JCC Tribunal.

40. The record of the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services’ concurrence under section 23(1) of the JSC Act in the Chief Justice’s approval of Ms Maduba as a person suitable for appointment to a JCC Tribunal.

41. Any commendation of Ms Maduba by Mlambo JP, or by other person(s), that she be appointed to the JCC Tribunal originally constituted in or about February 2013 to try the Constitutional Court’s complaint against Hlophe JP, namely that he improperly tried to influence two of its judges to decide a matter then pending before them in favour of former President Jacob Zuma.

NOTE:

NOTE: Brink’s complaint against Waglay JP details and documents an unequivocal, proven instance of successfully improperly influencing him to decide a case pending before him in LASA’s (and practically in Mlambo JP’s) favour; but in striking contradistinction to the JCC’s avid prosecution of the Constitutional Court’s complaint against Hlophe JP in which it alleged that he attempted to improperly influence two of its judges in a case pending before them, the JCC has shown no interest in determining Brink’s complaint against Waglay JP for throwing a case under written improper influence (the note later found in the court file and certified present in it by the registrar), notwithstanding repeated appeals to the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice to see to the decision of this extraordinarily serious charge. Brink’s letters are accessible at bit.ly/4ikzuyh. See further the Note to item 5. As said in the Note to item 34, Brink’s complaint against Waglay JP and his comments on his response present the several cogent indications that Mlambo JP authored and delivered the ‘memorandum’ that incontrovertibly induced Waglay JP to dismiss Brink’s petition to the Labour Appeal Court, and thereby criminally defeated the ends of justice.

Having regard to Brink’s complaints to the JCC that Mlambo JP suborned the perjury of his attorney in the Labour Court, and then, in his belated November 2020 response to the complaint about this, lied criminally on affidavit to deceive and misdirect the JCC so as to pervert its determination of the complaint; repeatedly deliberately violated the information transparency provision of the Constitution; and lied on multiple scores in false ‘confidential’ reports both to the Justice Minister and to the Justice Portfolio Committee of the National Assembly to pervert enquiries they’d separately and independently instituted into top-level recruitment corruption at LASA (in which he was involved) and into LASA’s repeated, blanket illegal and unconstitutional suppression of duly requested records (in which Mlambo JP was provably complicit), what role Mlambo JP played, if any, in Hlophe JP’s condemnation will be highly significant. And it will be bear heavily on the integrity of the JSC majority vote to impeach him, and the reliability of this majority vote as a basis for the National Assembly’s decision as to whether to remove Hlophe JP from the bench or not.

Mlambo JP’s repeatedly demonstrated prejudice against Hlophe JP is canvassed in paragraph 49 of the latter’s founding affidavit supporting his mid-September 2021 review application, accessible at bit.ly/3KpRQ4b.

Hlophe JP’s knowledge of Brink’s complaints against Mlambo JP to the JCC is evinced by his mention of Brink in paragraph 49.7 of that affidavit. The paragraph contains three errors, however, enumerated and corrected at illegal aid.co.za/JSC/Hlophe_JP, and pointed out by Brink to Hlophe JP’s legal team.

Former President Jacob Zuma is also aware of Brink’s complaints against Mlambo JP, having learned of them from a third party, upon which he requested that Brink brief him on them more fully at his residence at Nkandla at 9 pm on 22 February 2021. Brink reported the meeting to the Chief Justice in his capacity as chairperson of the JSC ex officio; see bit.ly/4p29H0f.

42. Ms Maduba’s letter of appointment to the said Tribunal in or about February 2013.

43. Hlophe JP’s (and/or any other) subsequent objection(s) to Ms Maduba’s appointment.

44. Ms Maduba’s response, if any, to the objection(s).

45. Ms Maduba’s letter of resignation from the Tribunal.

NOTE: During his telephone call to Brink on 14 November 2016, JSC secretary Chiloane told him that, as he recalled it, Ms Maduba had resigned from the tribunal ‘to avoid an unseemly scandal’. Brink mentioned the affair in his first letter to JSC chairperson Mogoeng CJ on 29 November 2019. It’s accessible at bit.ly/4p29H0f.

39. When the JSC ignored this request as usual, in its repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and for my fundamental right of access to public body records entrenched by section 32(1)(a), I sued out of the High Court at Pietermaritzburg to compel compliance with it.

40. The JSC substantially conceded my application (inasmuch I was now given other requested records, and a belated PAIA section 23 affidavit concerning those that didn’t exist), but it continued anxiously suppressing the above listed records in the Hlophe JP case on the manifestly dishonest, fake grounds advanced that they were ‘privileged’ and that my request for them was ‘vexatious’. (The first ground isn’t recognised by PAIA, and the second is obviously inapplicable to such a serious matter; and indeed, when in July 2024 I sought similar records concerning Ms Maduba Silevu’s appointment to the Tribunal in the Makhubele J case, the JSC meekly complied with my request and raised no such bogus objections to doing so; see paragraphs 6ff. above.) All court papers filed in my court application are online at bit.ly/3KWPTMG.

41. Having been blocked by the JSC a third time now, in its frantic obstruction of my relentless private investigation of the information I’d received about the Mlambo-Maduba affair as it pertained to the Hlophe JP case, and in its determination to cover for Mlambo JP and preventing me from ventilating this colossal corruption judicial scandal, I was constrained to the unconventional last resort of approaching Hlophe JP directly himself – asking in my letter to him whether it was true that he’d objected to Ms Maduba’s appointment to that first Tribunal originally appointed to try him, on account of Mlambo JP’s intimate relationship with her.

42. My letter, couriered to him to guarantee delivery, included my contact details for his response, namely my home and postal address, my email address, and my cellphone number. (I don’t see the MS Word original of the letter in my ‘Hlophe_JP’ computer folder where I expected to find it, so I can’t put it up here.)

43. To my pleasant surprise, Hlophe JP hopped right onto his phone after reading my letter and called me. He confirmed that the information I’d received and was looking to verify was perfectly correct, and he told me that he’d indeed objected to Ms Maduba’s appointment to the Tribunal originally convened to try him on account of what he called her ‘inappropriate sexual relationship’ with Mlambo JP, as he put it (his exact words).

44. On a conspectus of the available evidence, there’s little doubt that Mlambo DCJ (then JP) arranged Ms Maduba-Silevu’s appointment to the Tribunal in the Makhubele J case, just as he did about a decade earlier in fixing her appointment to the first Tribunal in the Hlophe JP case.

45. What makes Mlambo DCJ’s misconduct especially egregious in both cases is that he acted corruptly for personal advantage by covertly getting his (completely unqualified) mistress appointed to both Tribunals: in the first case to rig or bias the Tribunal against Hlophe JP, the better to achieve a ruling against him with a view to eliminating him as a then-popular contender and rival for the Chief Justice post when it became available (in the end he scored the second top slot; see his further central involvement in doing Hlophe JP down at illegal aid.co.za/JSC/Hlophe_JP/). And in the second, to rig or bias the Tribunal against Makhubele J, in a case where the Tribunal would be put to deciding whether she or Mlambo JP (as he then was) was telling the truth about a certain core factual dispute – or lying in Mlambo JP’s standard criminal habit, as Justice Nkabinde and Makgoka found on multiple counts in their findings against him in February 2024, concluding with their recommendation that he be tried before a Tribunal for his many documented criminal and other impeachable lies, about which I’d complained to the JCC with piles of receipts (see bit.ly/4ooeckH).

46. Had Makhubele J known of Mlambo DCJ’s adulterous relationship with Ms Maduba-Silevu, and had she been aware that this unusually friendly lady wasn’t even remotely qualified under section 23(1) of the JSC Act to serve on any Tribunal, she’d certainly have objected to her appointment to the Tribunal convened to try her.

47. Following which, Ms Maduba-Silevu would likely have resigned on the spot, just like she did when Hlophe JP objected to her – or got the sack if she refused to go.

48. And Mlambo DCJ would in short order have been hauled up on impeachable charges before the JCC for his revolting corruption of the disciplinary process in the Makhubele J case (the Hlophe JP case too) and for his cynical frustration of her right to a fair hearing, resulting in the gravest miscarriage of justice, professional humiliation, and incalculable and irrecoverable personal harm.

49. Later appointed Deputy Chief Justice after a risibly transparent sham of a nomination and selection process (see bit.ly/4oZdds7), Mlambo DCJ obviously has to go. It’s completely intolerable that we have such an extraordinarily corrupt person, who lies as freely as he breathes and has no morals of any sort whatsoever, so close to the top of our judicial system, sitting on the Constitutional Court, and chairing the JCC responsible for policing other judges’ integrity and conduct; and in these critical positions poisoning both the judiciary and its disciplinary machinery.

50. And to help this bum out the door, since the JSC (before Mandisa Maya CJ took over) has demonstrated its blithe indifference to and complete happiness with documented, proven criminal corruption in the leading ranks of our judiciary – notably excepting then JSC chairperson Raymond Zondo CJ and two others, who very honestly and admirably dissented, but got outvoted 9 to 3 by the crooked majority who threw out with the trash Justices Nkabinde and Makgoka’s commendably conscientious, finely detailed, 42 page review of my evidence against Mlambo JP (as he then was), along with their concluding findings and recommendation that he be tried by a Tribunal on my criminal and other impeachable charges (see bit.ly/4pCngUa) – I’m just waiting, with all the deadly intent of a mamba coiled patiently and expectantly under a tree, for the arrival here of US Ambassador-elect the Honourable Brent Bozell III, probably early next year following his confirmation by the US Senate, and I’ll be providing him with a comprehensive brief on judicial corruption in the New South Africa, in which I indict these corrupt top judges and their fellow top judges on the JSC and JCC who’ve corruptly covered for them (see bit.ly/45HO7Hn and see also the Waglay JP case there, currently on appeal) and I will suggest that they all be sanctioned and shamed before the eyes of the whole world. My brief will then be copied to every single other foreign embassy I can think of, since LASA Board chairperson Martha Mbhele DJP doesn’t feel like talking to me yet. With a view to getting everything over with nicely after all these many long years, and just in time before this thing really bites next year, internationally.

ADV ANTHONY BRINK
Eshowe, KwaZulu-Natal
12 November 2025
anthonybrink.sa@gmail.com
083 779 4174