Justice Nana Makhubele could face impeachment after the Judicial Conduct Tribunal found him guilty of misconduct. (Archived photo: Masego Mafata)
The Judicial Conduct Tribunal has found Justice Nana Makhubele, who served as interim chairperson of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) after being appointed as a judge in Gauteng, guilty of gross misconduct.
The tribunal, chaired by former KwaZulu-Natal chief judge Ahmat Jappy, found that his conduct as PRASA's interim director was similarly unethical.
The court's findings, which could lead to Makhubele's impeachment, will now be considered by the Judiciary Committee (JSC).
The tribunal was set up by the JSC to consider two complaints by commuter activist group #UniteBehind.
- Part A: She was the chairperson of the PRASA interim board as well as a judge.
- Part B: She was also involved in state capture in connection with matters related to the Siyaya group of companies. In particular, she, with PRASA's in-house legal team at her side, approved a payment of R56 million from PRASA to Siyaya in what was described as a “secret settlement agreement”.
Read the judgment (PDF, approximately 7MB)
In Part A, the court had to consider two conflicting versions: Gauteng judge Dunstan Mlambo's evidence and Makhubele's evidence.
Mr Mlambo claimed that Mr Makhubele never told him that she had accepted the PRASA job (a week after she was nominated as a judicial candidate following her JSC interview in October 2017). .
He said that when she did not show up for work on January 1, 2018, he called her into his office. Speaking at the meeting, which was also attended by Associate Chief Justice Aubrey Ledwaba, she said she had to consolidate her work as a defense attorney and her duties in the Water Court.
However, Mr Makhubele said the meeting took place later as Mr Mlambo had previously agreed to take up the judicial post in April 2018.
Mr Mlambo denied this.
In its findings, the court said Mr Makhubele's version of events was “most unlikely”.
“It is our view that this conversation and agreement that the defendant alleges he had with Mlambo to the effect that she knew she would not be able to begin work on January 1 is improbable. be.
“Her evidence as to why she appears to have pledged allegiance to the Water Court and how she has been unable to conclude unfinished court matters in order to be free and ready . [judicial duty] equally unconvincing, improbable and unreliable,” the court said.
Similar criticisms were leveled at her evidence regarding how she became interim president of PRASA.
“She said she passed her CV on to her neighbors and waited until she received congratulatory messages from various sources. She said the appointment was for just four months, but this was due to the Contrary to the content of the actual appointment letter.
“Credible evidence remains that the defendant (Makhubele) failed to perform his judicial duties pursuant to the appointment on 1 January 2018 and did not notify Mlambo that he had in fact accepted the appointment as PRASA director. .
“Her account of events was intentionally misleading and clearly insufficient to explain her actions to cast doubt on Mlambo's authoritative account. She is not guilty of gross misconduct. He committed the crime himself.”
Part B – Regarding her conduct during her tenure as Chairperson of Prasa – The essence of the complaint from #UniteBehind was that she had acted unbecoming of a judicial officer and was unbecoming of a judge. She acted dishonestly and unethically.
In summary, the court stated that this relates to her response to four lawsuits brought by the Siaya group of companies, which PRASA has vigorously defended.
The board of directors is said to have passed a resolution to resolve these allegations. There was no record of this decision.
This decision was communicated by Mr Makhubele to Mr Siyaya's lawyer, Francois Botes.
There were several interactions between Botes and Makhubele, including him physically visiting her office. She provided Botes with correspondence that assisted Siyaya in obtaining a default judgment against PRASA.
Evidence in the complaint is provided by Martha Ngoye, PRASA Group Legal, Risk and Compliance Executive, Fani Dingiswayo, Director of Legal Services, and Diale Mogashoa, an external lawyer handling Siaya matters on behalf of Prasa and Botes. Provided by Mr.
Mr Goe and Mr Dingiswayo testified that Mr Makhubele had alienated the legal department, terminated the mandate of PRASA's lawyers and personally appointed another law firm to replace them.
She then negotiated with Siyaya's lawyers and entered into a secret settlement agreement that clearly materially harmed PRASA's interests and frustrated PRASA's attempts to resist enforcement of the settlement.
The court said Ms Makhubele objected to the evidence, but she did not provide evidence to the contrary.
“Her evidence in the lead trial and in cross-examination was not only confusing but also quite difficult to follow. She had a tendency to introduce new evidence or irrelevant matters.
“Based on the evidence before us, this version was inherently problematic. It was contradictory and amounted to naked denial in the face of highly reliable evidence. ”
The tribunal said it was unclear who authorized Mr Makhubele to settle the Siaya matter and allow him to issue a default judgment against PRASA.
However, when the transport minister asked for a report on the matter, “she unexpectedly resigned and did not provide such a report,” the paper noted.
Once the default judgment was set aside, Siyaya took no further action to pursue these claims. In fact, the Siyaya Group was eventually liquidated.
The court said credible evidence was against Makhubele. Once again she was found guilty of gross misconduct.
This article was first published by GroundUp.
