Sexual Harassment or Flirtation Between South Africa’s 41-Year-Old Court Secretary, Andiswa Mengo and Her 63-Year-Old Judicial Superior, Selby Mbenenge?
Introduction
Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge is currently the subject of a Judicial Conduct Tribunal investigating allegations of sexual harassment brought by former court secretary Andiswa Mengo. The case, which began in early 2025, has attracted national attention—not only due to the stature of the accused, but because of the complexity of the evidence, the nuanced power dynamics, and the legal gray areas it exposes.
While much of the testimony and digital communications have been made public, the Tribunal is still deliberating. A ruling is expected later this year.
Background
Judge President Mbenenge, appointed in 2017, is known for his role in judicial transformation and for his public persona as a church elder and music producer. Ms. Mengo worked as a secretary within the Eastern Cape High Court.
In 2023, she submitted a formal complaint accusing the JP of making unwanted sexual advances. These included flirtatious WhatsApp messages, requests for photos, and an alleged incident inside his chambers. Mbenenge has not denied the personal nature of their exchanges but strongly contests the allegation of misconduct, describing their relationship as mutual and consensual.
What Constitutes Sexual Harassment?
Sexual harassment is legally defined in South Africa as:
Unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that violates the dignity of an individual, particularly in the workplace.
This includes:
- Verbal: remarks, innuendos, propositions
- Non-verbal: messages or gestures with sexual meaning
- Physical: contact, proximity, or exposure
- Abuse of power: indirect pressure or coercion
However, this case introduces an important nuance: Judge Presidents are not employees or employers under the Public Service Act. Mbenenge had no formal supervisory power over Mengo, meaning common workplace sexual harassment laws do not apply.
The conduct under review falls squarely within the realm of judicial ethics, governed by:
- The Judicial Service Commission Act
- The Code of Judicial Conduct
Legal Framework
While workplace legislation provides background context, the applicable laws for this inquiry include:
- Judicial Service Commission Act — Authorizes judicial misconduct tribunals
- Code of Judicial Conduct — Mandates impartiality, dignity, and avoidance of impropriety
- The Constitution of South Africa (1996) — Guarantees rights to dignity and equality
If the Tribunal determines that gross misconduct occurred, the Judge President could face impeachment under Section 177 of the Constitution.
The Tribunal’s Mandate
The Judicial Conduct Tribunal consists of senior legal professionals tasked with:
- Reviewing written and forensic evidence
- Hearing sworn testimony
- Evaluating whether judicial behavior violated ethical codes
- Issuing recommendations on disciplinary action
It is not a criminal trial, but its findings carry serious weight for a judge’s professional standing and future.
Key Allegations and Responses:
1. Claim: JP requested explicit photos and made sexual remarks
Response: He admits to flirtation but denies soliciting nude images. He claims his comments were “sensual, not sexual” and notes that Mengo responded warmly and never asked him to stop.
2. Claim: JP sent an image of his private parts
Response: He denies ever sending such an image. Forensic experts could not confirm its origin. He insists the claim is unproven and damaging.
3. Claim: He exposed himself and solicited oral sex in chambers
Response: He categorically denies the event occurred, producing vehicle tracker records and court logs to prove his absence from chambers at the time.
4. Claim: Mengo felt emotionally distressed
Response: JP argues the chats were consensual, stating he never perceived discomfort. He referred to affectionate messages and her use of “Jola”—his clan name—as evidence of familiarity and shared tone.
5. Claim: Mengo posted one of the messages publicly
Response: He said he was unaware of the post and later filed a crimen injuria charge against her for reputational damage.
Expert Witness Commentary: Consent, Power & Digital Complexity
As testimony unfolded during the Tribunal hearings, several expert witnesses offered distinct interpretations of the interactions between Judge President Selby Mbenenge and court secretary Andiswa Mengo. Their perspectives added important context around digital communication, authority, and how consent operates in hierarchical relationships.
Lisa Vetten – Gender-Based Violence Specialist
A seasoned analyst of gender dynamics, Vetten identified six behavioral strategies commonly used by individuals navigating discomfort in asymmetric power situations:
- Deflection (changing the topic)
- Deviation (responding ambiguously)
- Deferral (postponing the issue)
- Silence (non-response)
- Accommodation (placating the initiator)
- Resistance (“No” or direct rejection)
She argued that Mengo’s responses—including capitalized refusals and subtle diversions—indicated distress and an attempt to disengage while preserving professional stability. Vetten emphasized that consent in such environments is rarely binary, and often masked behind diplomatic or nonconfrontational replies.
Cross-Examination:
Mbenenge’s counsel challenged Vetten’s impartiality, suggesting her analysis lacked reference to the JP’s version of events and veered into psychological interpretation rather than strictly linguistic or evidentiary assessment.
Dr Zakeera Docrat – Forensic Linguist
Docrat focused on the forensic analysis of emoji and message content exchanged between the parties. Her key observations included:
- Mengo used laughing and monkey-face emojis—possibly to deflect tension or shift tone
- Emoji use did not clearly signal agreement or encouragement
- No thumbs-up, heart, or “OK” symbols—emojis often associated with consent or affirmation—were identified from Mengo
Docrat emphasized that emoji meaning depends heavily on context, timing, and relational nuance, and cannot be interpreted in isolation.
Francois Möller – Digital Forensics Specialist
Möller’s report recovered 855 messages from Mengo’s device, with forensic traces of 275 deleted entries. Key findings:
- The contentious image of the JP’s private parts presented by Mengo lacked metadata—its origin and delivery method could not be authenticated
- GPS and device logs supported Mbenenge’s claim that he was not in chambers at the time of the alleged physical misconduct
- Forensic constraints limited full recovery from the JP’s phone due to encryption settings and data retention gaps
His testimony underscored how digital trails—while extensive—can still leave crucial gaps when key evidence is missing or deleted.
These insights have deepened the Tribunal’s deliberation—and expanded public debate. Where one expert sees deflection, another sees ambiguity. And where technological analysis can't confirm intent, interpretation enters center stage.
Public Reaction
The case has spurred wide-ranging commentary on platforms like X, Facebook, and WhatsApp:
- Supporters of Mbenenge cite mutual flirtation, lack of coercion, and consensual tone
- Critics point to institutional power dynamics and ethical expectations of judges
- Legal analysts highlight that judicial officers—while not subject to workplace law—must still model integrity
The exchanges, emoji use, deleted messages, and timing of complaints have all fed public intrigue and polarized discussion.
Implications of a Verdict
Should the Tribunal find the Judge President guilty:
- He could be removed from office, setting a precedent for judicial accountability
- It may prompt reforms in reporting, consent, and oversight mechanisms for legal officials
If acquitted:
- Debate may shift toward clarifying ethical boundaries within hierarchical professions
- It could surface gaps in evidentiary thresholds for misconduct inquiries
Summary
The Mengo vs. Mbenenge case is less about sensationalism and more about interpretation—of consent, of power, of professional boundaries. It raises questions rarely tested within South Africa’s judiciary, and forces reflection on what ethical leadership should look like in elite institutions.
While both parties have presented strong narratives, the Tribunal’s task is to sift truth from perception—and weigh flirtation against impropriety.
Final Thought
“In the realm of law, facts are essential. But in matters of ethics, context is decisive. This case may reshape not just how judges are judged—but how dignity is defined.”
Comments
Post a Comment