THE
CORRUPTION OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN JUDICIARY
10 November 2025
NOTE: The author of this website is not suicidal and has set a dead man's switch. For more about this, hit the Menu bars.
TL;DR: Deputy Chief Justice Dunstan Mlambo is an unconvicted habitual criminal.
HOT: On 19 February 2024, Constitutional Court Justice Elizabeth Nkabinde (ret.) and Supreme Court of Appeal Justice Ephraim Makgoga, serving on the Judicial Service Commission's Judicial Conduct Committee Appeal Committee, found Adv Anthony Brink's criminal and other capital complaints against then-Gauteng High Court Judge President Dunstan Mlambo (now Deputy Chief Justice) facially well made on the documentary and other evidence presented against him, and recommended at the conclusion of their comprehensive, 42-page assessment of it all that he be tried on Brink's charges before a Judicial Conduct Tribunal. Material excerpts. (For subsequent developments, see below.)
President Ramaphosa nonetheless nominated him as a candidate for next Deputy Chief Justice, and appointed him as such after a ludicrously obviously rigged selection process in which completely irrelevant and perverse personal considerations were taken into account. The whole mess and its dire implications for the integrity of the South Africa judiciary and its disciplinary machinery is discussed here.
Criminal charges loading... Stay tuned.
----
NEW:
On 10 November 2025, another complaint to the Information Regulator about the JSC's illegal refusal to comply with Brink's PAIA request of 22 September 2025 (see below).
On 6 November 2025, a request that the Information Regulator perform an assessment of the Judicial Service Commission's compliance with the Promotion of Information Act over the past decade.
On 30 October 2025, the JSC's Judicial Conduct Committee Appeal Committee met again to consider Brink's adjourned appeal in the Waglay JP judicial corruption case. Decision awaited.
On 22 September 2025, a further request for JSC records, after the preceding one illegally refused and referred to the Information Regulator; see items 9-10 here.
On 26 June 2025, a complaint to the Public Protector about the JSC's failure to resolve the Poyo-Dlwati JP complaint, and developments.
On 19 June 2025, Brink filed his invited submissions (in PDF; webpage version) ahead of the JCC Appeal Committee's consideration of the Waglay JA judicial corruption case -- considered on 10 July and adjourned.
On 24 April 2025, a plea to JSC chairperson Mandisa Maya CJ, pressing for resolution of Brink's complaint against Portia Poyo-Dlwati JP on a clearcut charge of violating Article 16 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, filed and acknowledged back in November 2022.
Retaliation, but after reading Brink's report of this to Justices Nkabinde and Makgoga on 5 December 2024, the Legal Practice Council does a U-turn.
To which corrupt members of 'the judiciary' was KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi referring, 8 minutes 37 seconds into his bombshell media briefing on 6 July 2025 at KZN police HQ? The same or different corrupt judges from those paid millions in bribes by the State Security Agency ('SSA') during 'Operation Justice' -- about which project multiple witnesses testified before the State Capture Commission chaired by then-Deputy Chief Justice Zondo, whose evidence he accepted as true and summarised in his report on the SSA in June 2022? Former SSA Director General Arthur Fraser told the Commission via his counsel Muzi Sikhakane SC on 16 November 2020 that he has these crooked judges' names; watch 1 min 50 sec into this video. The Office of the Chief Justice reacts to the Mkhwanazi revelations, and the President appoints a commission of enquiry -- at which, Gauteng Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba gets accused of taking a bribe, which he denies.
Another lying judge, Parker J, gets convicted by a Judicial Conduct Tribunal on 18 July 2025.
On 31 July 2025, the Judicial Service Commission ('JSC') recommended that Makhubela J be impeached. If anyone has her number, please tell her that the Tribunal that found her guilty of misconduct was illegally -- and scandalously irregularly constituted, with Mlambo DCJ manoevring darkly behind the scenes -- see items 17-24 of this PAIA request and the JSC's revealing responses here.
----
INTRODUCTION: This document
archive chiefly concerns the criminal and other corruption of Dunstan Mlambo
DCJ, former head of the Gauteng High Court Division, and before that, of the
Labour and Labour Appeal Courts, and former chairperson of Legal Aid South
Africa ('LASA').
Prodigiously dishonest – he lies as naturally as he breathes – Mlambo DCJ has
debauched every institution he's joined.
Other judges he's corrupted and judges who've covered for them feature here
too; others as well. The whole saga beggars belief: a litany of repeated
criminal mendacity (lying to Parliament, lying on affidavit, suborning
perjury), demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law
(collusion in and connivance at the suppression of duly requested
incriminating public records; wholesale disregard for subordinate
legislation regulating public corporate governance; nepotism) and acceding
to illegal improper influence in tossing a case (a note slipped to the judge
under the counter, inadvertently but fortunately left in the court file)
before all the prescribed papers had been filed, and without the knowledge
of the two other judges falsely named in the fraudulently issued dismissal
order; of dishonestly closed ranks and judicial group loyalty and consequent
impunity; and of reprisal, intimidation and repeated attempted witness
suppression and elimination, Mafia-style, hit after hit – all documented.
Here's all the evidence.
You be the judge.
----
‘Allegations of dishonesty against judges are serious. Thus, they should
never be made unless there is evidence to support them.’ – Judicial Conduct
Tribunal Decision, paragraph 19; In the matter between Justices of the
Constitutional Court and Judge President M J Hlophe; 9 April 2021
'Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There's no better
rule.' – Jaggers to Pip in Great Expectations by Charles Dickens
----
For an overview of the position as at late 2023, see this
Specimen Draft Intelligence Report on Judicial
Corruption in South Africa that Brink prepared and submitted to
the Director General of the State Security Agency that year for presentation
to President Ramaphosa after investigation, verification, and editing at
will. Hear in-depth X Space discussions of the matter by United Democratic
Movement president General Bantu Holomisa MP, Adv Dali Mpofu SC, Dr Paul
Ngobeni, and Brink himself, among others. As Mpofu SC rightly put it: 'Even
if 20% of the stuff in the report is true, we have a lot to worry about'.
Fact is, it's 100% true: examine the supporting records referenced and
linked in the report, and assess the veracity of its claims yourself. Read
how legal journalist Karyn Maughan strained to discredit the judicial
corruption charges set out in the report, along with its author Brink,
without bothering to study the evidence -- soon afterwards found substantial
enough by two top judges to recommend that Mlambo JP (as he then was) be
tried on them before a Judicial Conduct Tribunal. Read how both Chief
Justice Zondo and the chairman of the General Council of the Bar also
disgracefully blithely dismissed Brink's criminal and other capital charges
against Mlambo JP without investigating them. How the JSC thereafter handled
and grossly irregularly disposed of the matter, as then-JSC chairman Zondo
CJ repeatedly warned his fellow commissioners, is covered below.
----
----
Eight gross misconduct complaints filed in
mid-2017 against
MLAMBO JP
(as he then was),
some charging serious crimes, to wit: suborning perjury; repeatedly
conniving at and colluding in the illegal and unconstitutional suppression
of public records duly requested under the Promotion of Access to
Information Act 2 of 2000 (‘PAIA’) to obstruct an investigation of
jobs-for-pals recruitment corruption at LASA in which he was centrally
involved; and lying and false ‘confidential’ reporting on multiple scores to
the Justice Minister, and then to the Justice Portfolio Committee of the
National Assembly (a crime), to put down and pervert enquiries they’d
separately and independently instituted into this corruption and its
cover-up, involving inter alia the said persistent illegal and
unconstitutional withholding of duly requested records to hinder its
exposure. All documented.
The above-linked
archive contains
all further papers filed in the Mlambo JP case, including the criminally
false affidavit he made and submitted to defeat the first of the eight
complaints, in which he told objectively contradicted, provable lies; and
Judicial Conduct Committee ('JCC') member
Dumisani Zondi JA's
'patently dishonest' attempt (in the language of retired Constitutional
Court judge Johann Kriegler about another judge) to sweep Brink's
impeachable complaints against Mlambo JP under the rug.
On 10 December 2021, a JCC appeal committee
comprising
Elizabeth Nkabinde J of the Constitutional Court, Ephraim Makgoka JA of the
Supreme Court of Appeal, and Margaret Victor J* of Mlambo JP's Gauteng
Division of the High Court met to consider Brink's appeal against this
stunt; and on 19 February 2024 the former two
upheld
Brink's appeal against the dismissal of his criminal and other capital
charges against Mlambo JP, to wit that he'd lied to the National Assembly to
pervert a special enquiry it had instituted at Brink's instance, lied
likewise to the Justice Minister to the same corrupt end, and that he'd
suborned his attorney to make and file a perjured affidavit on his behalf,
on his instructions, in a court case -- and recomended that the complaints
be further investigated and tried by a Judicial Conduct Tribunal. (*Victor J
somehow got replaced afterwards by Mathopo J, who dissented. The JSC has no
record of this irregular substitution.)
Here's the JCC
decision with covering
letter to Brink, and all the
papers in the
matter. The Sunday Times
reported
the decision on 10 March 2024 (street
poster), as did the SABC
online and on national televison and radio. (Note: Brink's complaints,
including that Mlambo JP lied on multiple scores to Parliament to pervert
its special enquiry (a crime) were allocated to a single judge to decide on
the patently false basis that they were 'serious, but not impeachable'. The
case was allocated to Betty Molemela JA, who failed to decide it, after
which it was passed to Dumisani Zondi JA. Covering for Mlambo JP, Zondi JA
then acquitted him of Brink's charges, without properly investigating them,
as the JCC appeal committee later duly found.)
The JSC
invited Brink's
submissions on the JCC appeal committee's recommendation. Here's
journalist Karyn Maughan's (paywalled)
report about it.
On 6 May 2024, the JSC conveyed its rejection of the recommendation,
claiming ludicrously falsely that ‘there is no prima facie evidence to
substantiate the allegations’ made by Brink in his four most serious
criminal and other capital complaints, all documented, which the JCC had
contrariwise found well made on the evidence Brink had adduced and
answerable before a Judicial Conduct Tribunal; see the JSC's
letter to Brink and its
press release. Brink's
response requested by the Sunday newspapers, but not published. An
SABC report on the JSC's rejection of the JCC's findings and
recommendation.
Reader, after examining these marked up material
excerpts from the JCC appeal committee's 42-page decision, in which
those two top judges carefully reviewed and discussed Brink's charges in
light of the cogent evidence he indeed provided and squarely subtantiated
with supporting documents, do you also think, like the JSC claimed to do,
that Brink's documented criminal and other capital complaints against Mlambo
JP are unsubstantiated -- diametrically contradicting Judges Nkabinde and
Makgoka's very opposite findings reported in their commendably detailed and
considered decision?
Testing the integrity of the JSC's patently false alleged finding that Brink
hadn't provided the JCC with evidence to found a prima facie case against
Mlambo JP, and of its alleged decision to reject the JCC appeal committee's
contrary findings and recomendation, Brink filed a
searching request for JSC records under the Promotion of Access to
Information Act on 1 July 2024.
The JSC's
response two months later revealed what a farcial, utterly lawless
abortion its proceedings were when the matter was discussed. The proceedings
and decision are headed for judicial review and setting aside.
To his credit, the
transcript shows that (a) Raymond Zondo CJ very properly urged and later
voted, along with two other
unidentified commissioners, for the adjournment of the matter to afford
Brink an opportunity to address the masses of new evidence, including many
documents, that Mlambo JP grossly irregularly and very prejudicially wove,
unsworn, into his fantastically dishonest 223-page
submissions;
but (b) Zondo CJ and those two other commissioners were outvoted nine to
three, despite his explicit warning to his fellow commisioners that in such
an event Brink would surely take the the whole unlawful shambles on judicial
review and that the JSC's decision would be overturned, like so many others
in the past.
But Zondo CJ was less concerned about defending Brink's right to natural
justice in the decision of the matter (by observing the audi alteram partem
rule) than to protect his, his fellow judges', and his JSC's reputation --
as witness the manner in which
at the Judges Conference in December 2023 he
rushed to defend Mlambo
JP and rubbish Brink's corruption complaints against
him, in the news at the time, without having examined and assessed them,
lying also that he'd never been provided with any evidence of Mlambo JP's
judicial corruption, even as Brink had written multiple
letters about
his long unresolved judicial corruption complaints both to him and to former
Chief Justice Mogoeng, who would have passed them down to him as then-JCC
chairman to deal with.
All in keeping with his untruthful prevarication reported by the Star
newspaper on 7 February 2022 in a frontpage
headline
article
detailing
how he'd initially denied ever having met former
President Jacob Zuma, then claimed he couldn't remember having done so, then
admitted that he had, but claiming he couldn't remember why. The article
(legible
text)
discussed the implications of his appalling tergiversation
about this. Zuma issued a public
statement about it, to which Zondo DCJ
responded with a statement of his own, trying to weasel out of it very
unconvincingly.
----
A complaint against
The 'memorandum' was almost certainly forged and uttered by Mlambo JP,
Waglay JP's long-time colleague in those courts and predecessor as head of
them, having regard to the classic test of motive, ability, and opportunity
in assessing circumstantial evidence indicating a likely culprit. For
reasons explained in the complaint, Mlambo JP had a direct interest in
seeing the appeal fail; and besides him no one else at LASA had the power,
influence and connections to get to Waglay JP behind the scenes and to
corrupt him in this way.
Waglay JP obliged his judicial chum by dismissing the petition on the turn,
even before all the prescribed papers had been filed and the matter was ripe
for decision; without considering its merits – such as the trial judge's
most basic mistake in misallocating the final burden of proof (which he
conceded afterwards, and LASA itself admitted), completely vitiating his
judgment, just for starters – and without the involvement, let alone
concurrence, of the other two two appeal judges, Davis and Sutherland JJA,
falsely named in the fraudulently issued dismissal order, who in truth were
presiding in different courts in distant cities when the decision was
allegedly taken en banc.
How do you suppose
KwaZulu-Natal judge
Daya Pillay J
reacted to the clearcut documentary evidence of all this? By recoiling in
horror at the rank judicial corruption in the court she used to work in,
described and vouched in the application papers before her? Or by
reflexively closing ranks around her former judicial colleague Waglay JP and
by vindictively gunning down the messenger reporting it? Find out
here.
Brink
wrote repeatedly to
no avail to then-JSC chairperson Mogoeng CJ (now retired) and then-JCC
chairperson Zondo DCJ (now CJ) to protest the JCC's unlawful and
unconstitutional failure to decide his capital complaints against Mlambo and
Waglay JJP. (Scroll down the linked page to 'Correspondence'.) Most
important is the
first letter
(with its
annexures) to Mogoeng CJ.
In January 2025, Brink wrote yet again, now to current JSC chairperson Maya
CJ, about the JCC's failure to decide his complaint against Waglay JP; and
Patricia Goliath DJP's undated decision of it was 'found' by the JSC
Secretary in the case file a couple of weeks later.
Brink's letter to Maya CJ; Goliath's truly pathetic, perverse decision; and
Brink's very forthright notice of appeal soon after in March and then
equally forthright submissions on the merits are linked
here.
The matter is pending.
----
Former
State Security Agency Director General ('SSA DG') Arthur Fraser
described on affidavit
in April 2021 how Mlambo JP illegally
removed a politically sensitive case from the court roll at President
Ramaphosa's illegal request. Mlambo JP naturally denied the charge. In
deciding whether or not Fraser told the truth about this and Mlambo JP lied
in denying it, consider that Fraser's
criminal complaint against President Ramaphosa on 1 June 2022,
supplemented by the
further information he provided to the police three weeks later, about
the burglary of millions of US dollars illegally obtained and illegally
concealed in his furniture at his Phala Phala game farm, and about the
illegal cover-up that followed, checked out and proved to be true, according
to Falcon Investigations, a team of investigative journalists who conducted
an independant, private investigation of the case – as the Sunday
Independent
reported
on 4 December 2022. (In other news, Fraser
sued in December 2022 for orders reviewing and setting aside Zondo DCJ's
(as he then was) State Capture report implicating him without a hearing.
Reported
here too.)
Mlambo JP's congeniality in doing Ramaphosa this illegal favour might
explain why
the latter fixed him an acting appointment to the Constitutional Court,
working through the Minister of Justice and flouting all norms in the
process. The Economic Freedom Fighters
complained about this, but the Public Protector
didn't find the gross irregularity unlawful.
Ramaphosa finally rewarded Mlambo JP by
appointing
him Deputy Chief Justice.
----
Brink's objection to
Mlambo JP
as a
manifestly unsuitable candidate for appointment as next Chief Justice, being
an unconvicted criminal, was delivered to
the JSC on 15 October 2021,
published
in full by Africa News Global online on the 20th, and reported by the Daily
News as its front-page headline article
on the 21st and by
IOL online. The
public interest law firm Limpopo Legal Solutions also
objected to
Mlambo JP on account of his obstruction of a criminal investigation of an
allegedly corrupt judge who'd served in his Division, and News24
reported
this on the 20th.
Concerning Mlambo JP's personal and professional integrity, i.e.
complete lack of any, see the contextual notes beneath the record
specifications in Part Two of this PAIA
request
for JSC records, made in September 2021. An
application
to the High Court to compel compliance with the request that the JSC ignored
elicited a partial response to it, in that the JSC belatedly complied with
Part One, but it's resisting responding to Part Two, the awkward bit. The
case is pending.
Disregarding both objections, as well as the still pending criminal and
other gross misconduct charges Brink had filed against him, the JSC
proceeded to interview Mlambo JP for the Chief Justice post in February
2022, but Zondo DCJ (as he then was) got appointed by the President instead,
even as the JSC found him to be the least suitable of the four interviewed
candidates for the top job, and ranked him last of the four applicants they
interviewed.
Although the JSC selected and recommended Supreme Court of Appeal head
Mandisa Maya P for appointment to the Chief Justice post vacated by Mogoeng
Mogoeng CJ, President Ramaphosa
explained
his preference for Zondo DCJ in risibly hollow cant: 'I considered the great
value in ensuring continuity and certainty in the leadership of the
judiciary, and the important role the judiciary plays in ensuring trust and
faith in state institutions.' (In October 2023, the Jacob Zuma Foundation
challenged the legality of the appointment on judicial review.)
Zondo CJ retired at the end of July 2024, and Maya DCJ succeeded him as new
Chief Justice in August.
During his interview, Mlambo JP told the JSC that long after he'd been
appointed as a judge, he enrolled to study for an LLB degree and was
irritated by the consistently bum marks his professors and tutors gave him,
including and especially in Labour Law, in which subject he imagined himself
to be a seasoned expert, being head of the Labour- and Labour Appeal Courts
at the time. Consistent with his legal professional ineptitude repeatedly
found by his academic examiners, Mlambo JP was challenged at his interview
with rumours that his judgments were ghostwritten for him.
Besides being a legal dullard on his own version with hardly enough brains
to run the till at his local KFC, and a stranger to the truth as the records
show, Mlambo JP equally
despises the rule of law as
the records also show. Small surprise then that a prominent Black senior
counsel considers him to be a jumped-up affirmative action disaster, a
'legal wrecking ball' and 'a thug'. Who delivers risibly contradictory,
unprincipled, inconsistent
judgments to ride the
political thermals for personal advantage.
Consistently with this,
after his successful interview for the Deputy Chief
Justice post in July 2025
Legalbrief reported: 'Asked
about Mlambo’s interview, Judges Matter’s Mbekezeli Benjamin [noted
that] he stumbled a bit on broader theoretical questions of his judicial
philosophy'. Small surprise.
A casual liar too, as said. The journalist who wrote the Daily News
article reporting the objections to Mlambo JP's application for the Chief
Justice post informed Brink that when she called him on his cellphone to get
his comment before going to print – using the number that Brink had just
sourced for her at her request from a legal colleague, because she couldn't
reach him via his court's landline – the lying judge tried shaking her off
after she introduced herself by falsely denying that it was him on the other
end and by claiming that she'd got the wrong number. When she reported this
to Brink, he reverted to his source who confirmed that the number was
correct, as vouched by the Truecaller app. The journalist then called the
lying judge again on the same confirmed number, and he told her the same lie
again. When she reported this to Brink, he verified the number again, now
with with a different legal colleague who said he'd used it in text message
exchanges with the judge. The journalist now called the same number for a
third time (from a different phone?), and this time Mlambo JP didn't falsely
dispute that she'd reached him and that it was him talking to her, and said
he'd given the JSC his responses to the two objections and had no further
comment to make. In reporting this to Brink, the journalist expressed her
shock and disgust, and indeed sounded exceedingly agitated, that a top judge
could have lied to her so blatantly and shamelessly in evading her initial
calls. Question is: Why would the lying judge have repeatedly lied like
this?
Raised by four different JSC commissioners at his interview for the Chief
Justice post,
Mlambo JP's personal and professional integrity in relation to the ladies
came up repeatedly. The Pretoria Bar afterwards
demanded that Dali Mpofu SC be kicked off the JSC for his questions
about this, as did the
General Council of the Bar ('GCB'). Aching
to be appointed by Mlambo JP as an acting judge of his court, in his hope to
land a permanent job on the bench one day, GCB chairman Craig Watt-Pringle
SC
condemned him too, and implied that Mlambo JP couldn't possibly have
abused his high office for intimate personal advantage. The GCB,
Watt-Pringle SC said, had
nominated Mpofu SC for membership of the JSC 'on the basis that he
represents the profession not on the basis that he would behave in this way
towards highly respected judges'. In other words, according to the leader of
the South African Bar sucking up to the 'respected judge', an advocate
ipso facto professionally misconducts himself by accusing a judge
like Mlambo JP of moral turpitude, irrespective of the evidence – which, as
noted in the paragraph above, the JSC is suppressing. (Discussed below,
while still an advocate like Watt-Pringle SC is,
Rob Mossop J
took the same craven position, saying as much in his reports to the Bar
Council, well understanding that you don't get onto the bench by rocking the
judicial boat.)
----
Former SSA DG Fraser's
objection
to Zondo DCJ as a candidate for appointment as next Chief Justice was
reported
by News24 on 19 October 2021, and Zondo DCJ's answer
to it was reported two days later. (As noted above,
Fraser has now gone to court over Zondi DCJ's findings made against him
without affording him a hearing. Not that it would have made any difference;
on his own showing, the country's top judge condemns people without properly
considering their detailed evidence, merely skimming over its 'theme[s]'
instead.)
----
Brink
filed
a
response to a professional assassination attempt in the
Babita Deokarun tradition in South Africa, contrived to rub him out as
the witness to Mlambo JP's criminal corruption. Can you believe that email
records turned up by a broadly framed PAIA request addressed to the Society
of Advocates of KwaZulu-Natal ('Society') reveal that
the JSC, of which
Mlambo JP was in effective control at the time, actively and repeatedly
supported LASA's attempt to professionally exterminate Brink by getting him
struck off the roll of advocates, so as to preemptively discredit him and
his eight impeachable complaints against Mlambo JP before the JCC got to
consider them? The email records are quoted in the said
response.
Consider the documented facts set out in Brink's
said response
submitted to the Legal Practice Council, in which he detailed the Society's
grotesque mishandling of LASA's complaint against him in November 2015 for
allegedly unprofessionally impugning Mlambo JP's integrity in court papers
filed in his various litigations against LASA, and decide for yourself
whether
Mossop J of the
KwaZulu-Natal Division, then a senior advocate, is the sort of guy who
troubles himself to study the evidence in exceptionally serious disputes
that have been entrusted to him to determine with capital implications for
affected parties, or whether he's wont to decide such gravely important
matters without actually doing so, all the while despicably dishonestly
dissembling otherwise. Read how his own colleagues didn't trust and believe
him, smelt a rat, disregarded his purported findings contained in his final
report to them (provably made without having read the tiresomely voluminous,
closely detailed and fully vouched answering papers), and how these legal
colleagues of his resolved to get to the truth of the matter by taking the
matter out of his hands and into their own, namely by examining all the
papers and deciding the case themselves. In other words, on an assessment of
the sickening facts documented in the response, form your own conclusion as
to whether Mossop J
can be trusted and relied upon to honestly and
diligently decide disputes placed before before him upon a careful
consideration of all the documented facts, or whether, like Mlambo JP and
Waglay JP, he's a lazy, slimy, smooth-talking crook.
And a self-serving moral coward.
Read how the Legal Practice Council zigzagged in the matter
like a drunk at the wheel.
With the LPC put on terms to finally resolve the complaint, its final
decision is expected by the end of November 2025 -- ten years after the
complaint was filed.
----
If not personally instigated by him, then at least certainly known to and
heartily approved by Mlambo JP, since all litigation by and against LASA is
reported to its Board of which he was then chairperson at the time, LASA had
another go at annihilating Brink by applying for an order stripping him,
like a banned person under apartheid, of his most basic rights to
information and to approach the courts to enforce the law when flouted by
LASA – by trying to
interdict him (a) from
accessing any more of LASA's records, including key records it had pledged
to turn over in a settlement agreement signed at court a few months earlier
after totally capitulating moments before argument to his PAIA litigation to
compel their delivery, which records LASA continued and continues
withholding in contemptuous and flagrant breach of its surrender treaty
handed into court; (b) from proceeding with his pending PAIA litigation
against LASA; and (c) from ever suing LASA again to compel the production of
duly requested records, or for any other reason, on the back of the fatuous
allegation that he's a 'vexatious litigant'. After listening to LASA's
counsel's stupid argument, which he made plain he thought was junk from the
word go (having spent a week studying the papers, he said), Vahed J quickly
threw the bum case out without even calling on Brink to argue.
----
To which judges was then-Acting SSA DG Loyiso
Jafta referring to in his
evidence given to Zondi DCJ's State Capture Commission about 'Project
Justice', a rogue SSA operation to bribe unnamed judges for factional
political ends, at least one of whom Jafta said was suspected on strong
circumstantial grounds of having indeed been so bribed? Jafta's evidence in
this regard was
corroborated by former Safety and Security Minister Sydney Mufamadi,
who'd recently chaired a high-level review of the SSA, and who also
testified before the commission. And by other witnesses as well. (The
Minister of State Security
reportedly tried to prevent Jafta giving this evidence, came out denying
it, and sacked him soon afterwards.)
Former SSA DG Fraser has the names -- so Muzi
Sikhakane SC stated (1 min
50 sec into this video
clip)
when appearing before the
Commission on his behalf. The JSC has shown no interest in finding out who
these crooked judges are.
Zondo CJ accepted the evidence of multiple witnesses testifying about this
judicial corruption, including about the many millions of rands delivered
physically in hard cash to then State Security Minister David Mahlobo for
this crooked purpose. No clear evidence was presented as to which judges
were corrupted in this way, and obviously so since Mahlobo baldly denied
everything, but as said, former SSA Director General Arthur Fraser told
Zondo CJ through his counsel that he has the names.
Here are material
excerpts from transcript of the witness testimony. Key bits:
Evidence of State Security Agency Acting Director General Loyiso Jafta to
the State Capture Commission on 26 January 2021:
...
CHAIRPERSON: You said the – the strong circumstantial evidence that you I
guess are aware of in pointing towards some money having been given to a
member of the Judiciary.
Here are
highlighted material excerpts concerning the SSA's 'Project Justice' to
bribe judges in Zondo CJ's
complete
report on the SSA, delivered to the President on
12 June 2022.
----
In November 2022, Brink filed a clear-cut complaint with the JSC's JCC
against
PORTIA POYO DLWATI ADJP,
charging her with contravening Article 16(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct
read with section 10 of its Preamble.
The following month,
President Cyril Ramaphosa
appointed this
clueless diversity-hire as Judge President of the KwaZulu-Natal Division
of the High Court.
The JCC has yet to deal with the complaint, so Brink asked chairperson
Maya CJ to get things moving; no
response, so a complaint to the Public Protector (hit the above main link).
----
Why did KwaZulu-Natal judge
Esther Steyn erupt so revealingly
aggressively-defensively at Brink's oblique hint from the bar that she
hadn't troubled herself to study the papers in his PAIA applications against
LASA before coming to court, as he'd
detected? An examination of the court file afterwards unequivocally turned
up her very dishonest reason. Find out
here.
----
Whatever you might think of these guys, you'll likely be appalled by Mlambo
JP's rotten involvement in the
Zuma contempt
and Hlophe impeachment
cases.
----
Reader, in light of the evidence placed before you here, what remaining
confidence do you have in President Ramaphosa's lofty declamation about the
'important role the judiciary plays in ensuring trust and faith in state
institutions' and in 'maintaining the rule of law in South Africa' nowadays?
***
'As one knows the poet by his fine music, so one can recognize the liar by
his rich rhythmic utterance, and in neither case will the casual inspiration
of the moment suffice. Here, as elsewhere, practice must precede
perfection.' – Oscar Wilde
'Besides, as the vilest Writer has his
Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that
if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no
farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after
it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is
over, and the Tale has had its Effect.' – Jonathan Swift
'Oh what a
tangled web we weave / When first we practice to deceive' – Sir Walter Scott
'The cover-up is always worse than the crime.' – Anon, after Watergate
'Judges ... are picked out from the most dextrous lawyers, who are grown old
or lazy, and having been biased all their lives against truth or equity, are
under such a fatal necessity of favoring fraud, perjury and oppression, that
I have known several of them to refuse a large bribe from the side where
justice lay, rather than injure the faculty by doing any thing unbecoming
their nature in office.' – Jonathan Swift
'The law is a web for small
flies, the wasps burst through.' – Ancient Greek proverb
ADV PRETORIUS SC: This
evidence may yet be forthcoming but we do not have it as yet but in relation
to the most recent questions and answers this afternoon and by way of
example Project Justice we were told by Dr Mufamadi that there was no
evidence that the money allocated for the project reached its final
destination to put it bluntly bribery of Judges. The question is why do we
not know that? Or do we know that and it is just too sensitive a matter to
place before the Chair? And either could be logically an explanation.
MR
JAFTA: Chair the – that in respect to that specific example we have – we
have very strong circumstantial evidence. What we do not know – what we do
not have and it is because – let me not go into that because Chair. We have
very strong circumstantial evidence that some of the money went into the
hands of some of the members or a member of the Judiciary. But I do not have
sitting here now is absolute concrete evidence of that.
Remember Chair
all of these things that we are talking to and I am sure you might hear I do
not know who else is coming here. We are talking about cash transactions. It
is money that gets delivered to A and A delivers it to B.
CHAIRPERSON:
And there is no receipt.
MR JAFTA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Can – would it be
fair to say to the extent that Project Justice seems to have talked about
Judges you are not aware of any other case involving a member of the
Judiciary where there seems to be some strong evidence?
In other words
were you aware of strong and you emphasise circumstantial is it not? It is
in respect of one.
MR JAFTA: Absolutely Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: So that is
the position?
MR JAFTA: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Mr Pretorius.
ADV
PRETORIUS SC: Are you satisfied then that the circumstantial evidence that
you have has been fully investigated? Have you asked the Judge concerned?
MR JAFTA: No, no we have not – we have not asked the Judge.
ADV PRETORIUS
SC: Do you intend to do so? Have you investigated the Judge?
MR JAFTA: It
is unavoidable that we have to at some point.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: So
investigations are on-going?
MR JAFTA: Investigations are on-going.
ADV PRETORIUS SC: Well then I will not ask my further question because that
may disrupt those investigations.
