ANNEXURE TO BRINK'S PAIA REQUEST FOR JSC RECORDS MADE ON 1 JULY 2024
(The complete PAIA request with all its annexures is accessible in PDF
here).
ANNEXURE TO FORM A
RECORDS REQUIRED
TAKE NOTE:
1. The requester will be referred to herein as ‘Brink’; the Judicial Service Commission as the ‘JSC’; the JSC excluding its members designated by the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces as ‘the small JSC’; the JSC’s Judicial Conduct Committee as the ‘JCC’; Legal Aid South Africa as ‘LASA’; the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 as ‘PAIA’; and the Judicial Service Commission Act 9 of 1994 as ‘the JSC Act’.
2. Section 25 of PAIA prescribes that this request must be responded to ‘as soon as reasonably possible, but in any event within 30 days after the request is received’.[1]
3. The only persons who may lawfully and competently respond to this request are the JSC’s information officer ex officio as defined by section 1 of PAIA, or a duly authorized deputy information officer holding a written delegation as such issued by that information officer under section 17(6) of that Act.
3.1. Registration of a person with the Information Regulator as an information officer under section 55(2) of the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 doesn’t qualify that person as information officer, nor does any certificate issued by the Information Regulator in this regard, unless that person is the concerned public body’s information officer ex officio as defined by section 1 of PAIA.[2]
3.2. Nor does such a certificate issued by the Information Regulator legally effectively substitute for a written delegation under section 17 of PAIA issued by the information officer of a public entity, and it doesn’t qualify that person as a deputy information officer in lieu of such a written delegation.[3]
3.3. Nor does an appointment as a ‘State Law Advisor’ – having a ‘portfolio that falls within the Secretariat Division of the Respondent (JSC) and responding to requests for information is within my core functions’[4] – qualify such a person as a deputy information officer legally empowered to respond to a records request without a written delegation issued under section 17 of PAIA. Without holding such a written delegation under that section, no State Law Advisor has any legal authority and is acting legally incompetently when ‘responding to requests for information’ on the basis that he or she has been told by someone or thinks this ‘is within my core functions’.
4. In the event that any record specified below doesn’t exist, section 23 of PAIA requires that this fact must be certified unequivocally on affidavit, in the manner precisely prescribed by that section.
5. Falsifying or concealing a duly requested record with the intention of violating a requester’s constitutional right of access to information held by the state is a serious criminal offence under section 90 of PAIA. The fact that much of this request concerns judicial corruption and its prosecution by the JSC or otherwise will count as a seriously aggravating circumstance in the event that section 90 is criminally contravened in responding to this request.
6. A request for public body records like this one made under section 11 of PAIA may only be lawfully refused on one of the ‘Grounds for Refusal of Access’ contemplated in Chapter Four of Part One of PAIA, and on no other ground.
7. To allege that a requested record is ‘privileged’[5] does not constitute a lawful ground for refusing access to a public body record. ‘Privilege’ features nowhere in PAIA as a legally competent ground for suppressing a record requested under that Act, and such an allegation of ‘privilege’ affords no legal justification for refusing access to that record and is irrelevant and incompetent; and withholding that record for that spurious reason is illegal and unconstitutional.
8. That a record, or lack of it, may be incriminating, compromising, or embarrassing to the JSC or any of its members or their judicial colleagues does not render a request for it ‘vexatious’,[6] and a request for access to that record made under PAIA may not lawfully be refused for this reason without vexatiously violating the requester’s fundamental right to information held by the state and its organs guaranteed by section 32(1)(a) of the Constitution.
9. Under section 11(3), the requester’s right of access to a public body record is not affected by his reasons for seeking access. As the Constitutional Court observed in Helen Suzman Foundation v Judicial Service Commission [2018] ZACC 8, paragraph 44: ‘PAIA affords any person the right of access to any information held by the state. The person seeking the information need not give any explanation whatsoever as to why she or he requires the information. The person could be the classic busybody who wants access to information held by the state for the sake of it.’ Nonetheless, Brink’s several serious reasons for requesting the records specified in this request are declared as follows:
· To test the veracity, integrity, and legality of an alleged finding and alleged decision by the small JSC mentioned both in the Contextual Background section and in the list of requested records below;
· To test whether the JSC, chaired by the Chief Justice, is complying with its reporting and other obligations imposed by PAIA, or is concealing from the Information Regulator, and from the National Assembly in turn, its non‑compliance with its constitutional information transparency obligations in violation of section 32(1)(a) of the Constitution, so as to avoid being held to account for this;
· To test whether the JCC is complying with its reporting obligations imposed by the JSC Act, or not doing so, thereby stultifying and defeating the JSC’s oversight over the JCC’s performance of its judicial disciplinary functions with reasonable and lawful expedition;
· To ascertain other information concerning and held by the JSC;
· To ascertain whether the chairmen of the JSC and of the JCC duly responded to any of Brink’s four successive written appeals, two to each of them,[7] imploring that they see to the very long overdue decision of his capital complaint to the JCC against Basheer Waglay JP,[8] lodged in June 2017, in which Brink charged him with corruptly dismissing his petition for leave to appeal the dismissal of his labour action against LASA (chaired at the material time by Mlambo JP) at the written instance of an anonymous but obviously well-connected third party – also prematurely, before all the prescribed had been filed and the case was ripe for decision; also without the knowledge and concurrence of two other appeal judges falsely named in his dismissal order[9] – still undecided now seven years later.
· To ascertain the circumstances in which Margaret Victor J[10] was replaced by Rammaka Mathopo J[11] on the JCC appeal committee that considered Brink’s appeal against JCC member Dumisani Zondi JA’s dismissal of his criminal and other capital charges against Dunstan Mlambo JP, and related matters;
· To ascertain: (a) which judge(s) initially handled Brink’s still undecided complaint filed with the JCC in November 2022 against Portia Poyo Dlwati JP (then ADJP) on a charge of violating her judicial ethical obligation imposed by Article 16(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, in failing to report the categorically proven perjury of a legal practitioner, despite being pertinently reminded of her peremptory duty to do so, and (b) to which judge(s) the said complaint was allocated for decision;[12]
· To test the legality and propriety of the JSC’s appointment of a certain woman to a Judicial Conduct Tribunal currently trying another accused judge on an unrelated complaint brought by another party.
CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND
On 19 February 2024, Constitutional Court Justice Elizabeth Nkabinde and Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Ephraim Makgoka serving on the JSC’s JCC appeal committee upheld Brink’s appeal against JCC member Zondi JA’s dismissal of his criminal and other capital complaints against Mlambo JP, head of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, and chairman of LASA at the material time, and recommended that he be required to answer them before a Judicial Conduct Tribunal.[13]
This recommendation followed a comprehensive 42-page review and discussion of the documentary and other evidence that Brink had adduced in support of his complaints. Marked up for relevance, material excerpts of Judges Nkabinde and Makgoka’s decision are annexed hereto marked ‘A’.[14]
The nut of Brink’s criminal and other capital complaints against Mlambo JP, whose facial validity Judges Nkabinde and Makgoka recognized on appeal as answerable and fit for trial,[15] is that:
1. As then- chairman of LASA Mlambo JP successfully perverted special Parliamentary and Ministerial enquiries separately and independently instituted into top-level recruitment corruption at LASA in which he was centrally involved (jobs for pals) by way of ‘confidential’ reports to these supreme oversight and executive authorities that were replete with blatant lies objectively contradicted by LASA’s own records, which lies, after Brink tested,[16] refuted and exposed them, were in one case recanted and in another contradicted by other new completely different lies invented to replace and substitute for the earlier debunked ones – all pertinently canvassed by Judges Nkabinde and Makgoka in their commendably thorough analysis of the evidence; and,
2. Mlambo JP importuned his attorney to depose to an affidavit made on his instructions and on his behalf containing a false defamatory allegation against Brink, filed in his anxious opposition to Brink’s application for leave to subpoena him for cross-examination during the trial of his labour case on the said easily objectively demonstrable, blatant lies that he’d told the Minister and the National Assembly’s Justice Portfolio Committee to pervert their enquiries, thereby suborning perjury.
In their decision, Judges Nkabinde and Makgoka very correctly identified Brink’s basic grievance against LASA, namely that its officers had persistently and repeatedly lied to Brink, to the Justice Minister, to the Justice Portfolio Committee, to the Labour Court, to the Labour Appeal Court,[17] to the Eshowe Magistrate’s Court,[18] and to this Division of the High Court[19] in alleging inter alia that LASA all of sudden lacked the funds to fill its long vacant, critical, top specialist legal professional post in KwaZulu-Natal, its Senior Litigator post at Pietermaritzburg,[20] and had consequently resolved to freeze recruitment to it – having repeatedly and persistently advertised it and twice interviewed for it – right after Brink was unanimously recommended in glowing terms for it by a selection panel on 12 November 2009 – lies contradicted, refuted and exposed by (i) LASA’s own financial records, showing that at all material times the post has always been funded by the National Treasury via the Justice Department; (ii) the fact that no record whatsoever exists of any decision taken by any competent authority at LASA (or by anyone at all) to freeze recruitment to the post after Brink’s selection for it, as falsely alleged to Brink and to all the said high authorities; (iii) the fact that this falsely alleged decision was never reported in LASA’s annual report for the relevant financial year; and (iv) the fact that LASA’s National Operations Executive told its Board totally different lies (also contradicted, refuted, and exposed by LASA’s own records) to justify not filling the post by hiring Brink as the duly recommended candidate for it, after Brink had investigated the delay in his appointment and the lying excuse given for it and then the lying financial alibi advanced for silently aborting his recruitment, and had irrefragably refuted and exposed these dull lies.
On 19 March 2024, the small JSC invited Brink’s submissions regarding Judges Nkabinde and Makgoka’s recommendation. A copy of its letter to him is annexed marked ‘B’.
On 4 April 2024, Brink supported the recommendation, but urged an alternative, conciliatory resolution of the matter instead of a punitive one. A copy of Brink’s submissions is annexed marked ‘C’.
On 6 May 2025, diametrically contradicting Judges Nkabinde and Makgoka’s carefully considered finding that Brink had established an answerable case on the documentary and other evidence he’d provided in support of his criminal and other capital complaints against Mlambo JP, the JSC secretariat wrote to Brink alleging that ‘The JSC, excluding the members designated by the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces, found that there is no prima facie evidence to substantiate the allegations’ made by Brink in his complaints, and that ‘The small JSC decided not to accept the recommendations of the JCC to refer the 4 complaints against Mlambo JP for investigation by a Tribunal’.’ The JSC secretariat’s letter to Brink is annexed marked ‘D’, and its press release about this is annexed marked ‘E’.
Having regard to Brink’s extensive documented case against Mlambo JP, thoroughly reviewed by Judges Nkabinde and Makgoka on the JCC appeal committee, the small JSC’s alleged finding and alleged decision ‘shocks the conscience’[21] of any intelligent, reasonable, unbiased, straight, and honest reader.
Conversely, the small JSC’s alleged finding and alleged decision will not be shocking to the conscience of an unintelligent, unreasonable, biased,[22] dishonest[23] and corrupt person, and such a person will claim/read that alleged finding and alleged decision in light of the JCC appeal committee’s decision with perfect moral ease.
RECORDS REQUESTED
1. The record of the decision allegedly taken by the small JSC, identifying its members and including their signatures, who allegedly decided ‘not to accept the recommendations of the JCC to refer the 4 complaints against Mlambo JP for investigation by a Tribunal’ on the basis alleged to Brink that its members ‘found that there is no prima facie evidence to substantiate the allegations’ Brink made in his four most serious criminal and other capital complaints against Mlambo JP, upheld on appeal for referral to a Judicial Conduct Tribunal, which allegations Constitutional Court Justice Elizabeth Nkabinde and Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Ephraim Magkoka on the JCC appeal committee contrariwise had found well-made and triable upon its thoroughgoing assessment of the documented facts.
2. If the small JSC’s alleged finding and alleged decision weren’t unanimous, the record of any dissenting decision(s) reflecting the identities and signatures of the minority members who disagreed with the majority and who (a) agreed with the JCC appeal committee’s findings, following their extensive review and assessment of the documentary and other evidence provided by Brink in support of his complaints, that he had indeed established an answerable criminal and otherwise capital case against Mlambo JP on several counts, and (b) agreed with their recommendation that he answer Brink’s criminal and other capital charges before a Judicial Conduct Tribunal.
3. If the small JSC’s alleged finding contradicting that of the JCC appeal committee, and the former’s alleged decision to reject the latter’s recommendation, were made in committee with all members physically present in the same conference room to consider and debate the JCC appeal committee’s said findings and whether or not to accept its recommendation:
3.1. Any and all notices sent to the small JSC’s members advising them of the date, time, and venue of the meeting to discuss and decide the JCC appeal committee’s said findings and recommendation;
3.2. Any and all records vouching that before their said meeting, to enable them to prepare to properly consider and debate the matter, all members of the small JSC were furnished beforehand with copies of all or any of the following essential case documents:
· Brink’s four criminal and other capital complaints against Mlambo JP in respect of which the JCC appeal committee upheld his appeal;
· Mlambo JP’s response to them;
· Brink’s invited comments on this;
· Mlambo JP’s second response to Brink’s first complaint (subornation of perjury);
· Brink’s invited comments on this;
· Zondi JA’s decision dismissing the complaints;
· Brink’s appeal notice;
· Brink’s invited submissions regarding his appeal submitted before the JCC appeal committee met to consider and decide it at the Constitutional Court on 10 December 2022;
· the JCC appeal committee’s decision and recommendation; and,
· Brink’s invited submissions on it, in which he agreed with the recommendation but proposed an alternative, conciliatory resolution.
3.3. The register of the small JSC members present at this meeting to consider and decide Brink’s appeal, showing their names and signatures;
3.4. The minute or other record of the small JSC’s deliberations at its said meeting, concluding (a) in its finding – diametrically contradicting the finding of JCC appeal committee members Judges Nkabinde and Makgoka – that Brink hadn’t presented ‘prima facie evidence to substantiate the allegations’ he’d made in his four most serious documented criminal and other capital complaints against Mlambo JP, and (b) in the small JSC’s decision to reject the JCC appeal committee’s recommendation that the Chief Justice appoint a Judicial Conduct Tribunal to try Brink’s said complaints.
4. If the small JSC’s alleged finding was not made and its alleged decision was not taken in committee with all its members physically present at the same place in the same room on the same date and at the same time to consider and debate the JCC appeal committee’s findings and recommendation, but instead each member considered the matter separately on his or her own, with all members sitting in their geographically distant chambers or elsewhere:
4.1. Any and all records vouching that the small JSC’s members were notified that they were (a) to consider the JCC appeal committee’s findings and recommendation, and (b) to report their decision as to whether or not to accept the recommendation;
4.2. Any and all records vouching that before considering and deciding the matter the small JSC’s members were furnished with any or all of the essential case documents enumerated in paragraph 3.2 above to enable them to properly do so; and,
4.3. Any and all records of each of the small JSC’s members’ separate, individual findings made and decisions submitted to the JSC Secretariat or other JSC officer, which unanimously or by a majority informed the small JSC’s ultimate alleged finding that ‘there is no prima facie evidence to substantiate the allegations’ that Brink made in his criminal and other capital complaints against Mlambo JP, squarely supported by the documentary and other evidence Brink had provided – which allegations, following their close examination and assessment of the documentary and other supporting evidence, the JCC appeal committee had recognized as prima facie well-founded and answerable – and which informed the small JSC’s members’ ultimate alleged decision ‘not to accept the recommendations of the JCC to refer the 4 complaints against Mlambo JP for investigation by a Tribunal’.
5. The written instruction by email or otherwise issued to JSC Secretary Mbali Mondlane to allege to Brink in her letter to him of 6 May 2024[24] (i) that the small JSC had found ‘there is no prima facie evidence to substantiate the allegations’ made by Brink in his documented criminal and other capital complaints against Mlambo JP, which words quoted here Ms Mondlane used in her said letter, as instructed by some person on the small JSC, and (ii) that the small JSC had accordingly decided ‘not to accept the recommendations of the JCC to refer the 4 complaints against Mlambo JP for investigation by a Tribunal’’.
6. The record reflecting the author of the JSC’s Media Statement conveying this alleged finding and alleged decision by the small JSC,[25] whose words appear in the said statement.
7. A complete list of all current members of the JSC.
8. The register, or other records, of all current JSC members’ official email addresses.
9. Any and all records pertaining to and explaining the replacement of Betty Molemela JA, appointed on 29 March 2019 to decide Brink’s complaints against Mlambo JP,[26] with Zondi JA, appointed on 21 February 2021[27] to decide them instead.
10. If this records request is responded to by a deputy information officer of the JSC, his or her written delegation as JSC deputy information officer by the JSC’s information officer under section 17 of PAIA.
11. The JSC’s PAIA manual which section 14(1) of PAIA, read with section 3.1 of the PAIA Regulations,[28] requires the JSC’s information officer to publish, on pain of the criminal penalty provided in section 90(2) of PAIA; alternatively, the Justice Minister’s written exemption granted under section 14(5) of PAIA relieving the JSC’s information officer of his or her legal obligation to publish a PAIA manual.[29]
12. The information officer’s published description of ‘the categories of records of the public body that are automatically available without a person having to request access in terms of this Act’, which he or she is required to publish under section 15(1)(a) of PAIA, read with section 4 of the PAIA Regulations.
13. The JCC’s six-monthly progress reports to the JSC, prescribed by section 10(2) of the JSC Act, delivered in 2022 and 2023 in relation to Brink’s complaints (a) against Mlambo JP,[30] (b) against Waglay JP (filed in June 2017 and still undecided),[31] and (c) against Portia Poyo Dlwati JP (filed in November 2022 and still undecided).[32]
14. The JSC’s annual reports to Parliament made under section 6 of the JSC Act for 2022 and 2023; alternatively material extracts from these reports dealing with disciplinary matters pending before the JCC.
15. The record identifying the judge to whom Brink’s complaint against Poyo Dlwati JP was allocated for decision, in which Brink charged her with violating her judicial ethical obligation imposed by Article 16(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct to report legal practitioner misconduct – in casu, categorically proven, documented perjury committed by LASA Chief Legal Executive Patrick Hundermark.[33]
16. The JSC’s annual reports to the Information Regulator prescribed by section 32 of PAIA on its compliance with that Act, to inform the Information Regulator’s own annual reporting to the National Assembly under section 84(b) of that Act on public bodies’ compliance or otherwise with their constitutional information transparency obligations:
16.1. For the period March 2021 to February 2022, reporting the JSC’s deemed refusal under section 27 of PAIA to comply with Brink’s preceding PAIA request filed in September 2021, by ignoring it;
16.2. For the period March 2022 to February 2023, reporting Brink’s application to this court to compel the JSC’s compliance with that request, launched in April 2022.[34]
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]
18. The JSC’s prior invitation to Ms Maduba-Sileva 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-Sileva as a suitable prospective member of the said Tribunal or of such Tribunals generally.
20. Prior to her appointment to the Tribunal, Ms Maduba-Sileva’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-Sileva’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-Sileva 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-Sileva 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-Sileva, 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]
[1] Violating Brink’s constitutionally guaranteed right to access public body information, the JSC illegally ignored, and thereby tacitly refused his previous records request in September 2021, and compliance with it had to be compelled with an application to this court under case number 5042/22P (‘the application’). The JSC substantially capitulated to the application in its answering affidavit (‘answering affidavit’), and belatedly acceded to much of the request; more about this below. The application is pending.
[2] C.f. the person incorrectly and irrelevantly certified as JSC information officer by the Chief Executive Officer of the Information Regulator (annexure ‘L’ of the answering affidavit). Moreover, the person wrongly certified as information officer – of the JSC, as implied by paragraph 44 of its answering affidavit – is employed by the Office of the Chief Justice, not by the JSC, a quite different public entity established by the JSC Act.
[3] In response to Brink’s request for the JSC’s deputy information officer’s written delegation issued by the information officer under section 17(6) of PAIA if his request was handled by a deputy information officer (item 31 of his Form A Annexure to his previous request for JSC records), the JSC irrelevantly responded in paragraph 44 of its answering affidavit, not by providing this document, but by putting up a ‘Registration Certificate’ (annexure ‘L’ thereto) issued by the CEO of the Information Regulator listing certain persons as information officer and deputy information officers, as registered by the Office of the Chief Justice, not by the JSC, a different public entity, as said above.
[4] Per paragraphs 10-12 of the ‘Explanatory Affidavit’ annexed to the JSC’s answering affidavit.
[5] In paragraph 45 its answering affidavit, the JSC advances this legally spurious and incompetent justification for illegally and unconstitutionally suppressing all the records duly requested in Part Two of Brink’s PAIA Form A Annexure.
[6] The JSC advanced this bogus ‘vexatious’ excuse in paragraph 46 of its answering affidavit as a further false justification for illegally and unconstitutionally concealing all the different records Brink duly requested in Part Two of his Form A Annexure.
[7] See under ‘Correspondence’ at www.illegal-aid.co.za/JSC.
[8] And also against Dunstan Mlambo JP, but Brink’s complaints against him have now been ostensibly resolved; see Contextual Background section below. All documents in the matter are accessible at:
[9] The complaint detailing and vouching this is accessible at www.illegal-aid.co.za/JSC/Waglay_JP.
[10] Victor J is identified in annexure ‘J’ to the answering affidavit.
[11] Mathopo J is identified on the first page of the decision, not Victor J.
Mathopo J dissented from the majority, on the glaringly mistaken basis identified by the majority at the tail of their decision.
[12] See www.illegal-aid.co.za/JSC/Poyo_Dlwati_ADJP.
Not only is the complaint still undecided, it appears that the JCC hasn’t even asked Poyo Dlwati J to respond to it, because unlike in the Mlambo JP and Waglay JP cases Brink hasn’t been invited to comment on her response, more than a year-and-a-half since he filed his complaint against her.
[13] All documents in the matter are publicly accessible at: www.illegal-aid.co.za/JSC/Mlambo_JP.
[14] The complete decision is accessible at:
www.corrupt-judges.co.za/JCC_Appeal_Committee_Adv_Brink_v_Mlambo_JP_19_Feb_2024.pdf.
[15] The JCC appeal committee cursorily dismissed Brink’s appeal against the dismissal of four of his relatively less serious complaints, namely that, as the records Brink put up clearly prove, Mlambo JP had repeatedly colluded in and connived at the illegal and unconstitutional suppression of duly requested documents held by LASA, on the basis inter alia that the test for constitutionally guaranteed entitlement to access public body records is ‘subjective’. It’s not relevant here to comment on the quality of the JCC appeal committee’s unfortunate legal reasoning in this regard.
[16] By means of a succession of records requests made under PAIA, some forced out of LASA with five applications to court under that Act, plus another to compel full and proper compliance with LASA’s surrender treaty signed at court, and before this by way of multiple rounds of discovery procedure in the Labour Court, including twice under judicial supervision to overcome LASA’s persistent obstruction.
[17] How LASA – undoubtedly Mlambo JP himself – corruptly perverted the decision of Brink’s petition for leave to appeal the dismissal of his labour action by dint of a note slipped to his successor as head of the Labour and Labour Appeal Courts, Basheer Waglay JP, importuning him to throw the case, is the subject of a pending complaint to the JCC against him filed in June 2017, still undecided seven years later, despite multiple written appeals to the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice that they see to it.
[18] In Brink’s five PAIA applications brought there, set down together, and conceded by LASA at court moments before argument.
[19] In several litigations between Brink and LASA, past and pending.
[20] There’s a twin such post at Durban, created to meet the needs of this province’s exceptionally high population.
[21] In the language of the US Supreme Court in Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).
[22] News reports:
3. www.enca.com/news/zondo-calls-independent-judiciary
Background to these news reports: www.corrupt-judges.co.za/SSA
[24] Annexure ‘D’ hereto.
[25] Annexure ‘E’ hereto.
[26] Answering affidavit, annexure ‘C’.
[27] Answering affidavit, annexure ‘B’.
[28] Regulations relating to the Promotion of Access to Information, 2021; with effect from 27 August 2021; Government Notice R757 of 2021.
[29] Brink asked for this legally obligatory manual in his first PAIA request for JSAC records in September 2021, but his request for it (item 30) was ignored, and thereby tacitly refused. Sued for a copy of this manual in April 2022, the JSC responded on oath that it had not published one; see answering affidavit, paragraph 43.
Since the Note to Brink’s request for this PAIA manual pertinently underscored the JSC information officer’s legal obligation to publish it, if more than two-and-a-half years later the JSC information officer still hasn’t done so, this may amount to a wilful or grossly negligent failure, attracting the criminal penalty provided in section 90(2) of PAIA.
[30] All documents are accessible at www.illegal-aid.co.za/JSC/Mlambo_JP.
[31] All documents are accessible at www.illegal-aid.co.za/JSC/Waglay_JP.
[32] The acknowledged complaint is accessible at www.illegal-aid.co.za/JSC/Poyo_Dlwati_ADJP.
It remains undecided, in breach both of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act and of the Code of Judicial Conduct and its prescripts regarding the reasonably expeditious decision of disputes.
[33] These are the same criminal lies by Hundermark – refuted and exposed in Brink’s replying affidavit – that Mlambo JP told the Justice Portfolio Committee (also the Justice Minister), recognised by Judges Nkabinde and Magkoka of the JCC appeal committee in upholding Brink’s appeal against Zondi JA’s dismissal of his complaints about these same criminal lies that Mlambo JP told the Justice Portfolio Committee of the National Assembly (and also to the Justice Minister), following their careful and through assessment of the evidence Brink adduced to refute and expose them.
[34] In July 2022, the JSC substantially conceded Brink’s application by belatedly surrendering duly requested documents annexed to its answering affidavit, but it’s illegally suppressing inter alia the most incriminating of the records that Brink has requested; see next footnote.
[35] Per ‘Timeline of Makhubele Tribunal’ published by the NGO Judges Matter on its website at: www.judgesmatter.co.za/conduct/makhubele-tribunal.
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-Sileva’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.
[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.