Controversy appeared to be the launching point before the third witness in the sexual harassment tribunal hearing against Judge President Selby Mbenenge continued on Friday. 

Unathi Sogoni, a stenographer at the Makhanda High Court and a former friend of complainant Andiswa Mengo, is the third witness brought by Mbenenge’s counsel.

Before she could start her testimony, advocate Griffiths Madonsela asked the permission of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal chairperson – retired judge Bernard Ngoepe – to deal with a matter separate from the merits of Mengo’s case before the Tribunal.

Ngoepe and the panel dealt with the issue related to an incident on June 2, where Mengo received death threats. 

Last month, Mengo received a handwritten note left at her desk at court on Friday, in which it was said, “a bullet is waiting for you”.

Ngoepe shot down Mbenenge’s counsel’s attempt to lead evidence or introduce elements to the tribunal regarding the June incident. 

Mengo has levelled allegations of sexual harassment against Mbenenge, which include WhatsApp conversations and untoward face-to-face commentary and interactions. 

On Friday, arguing for the testimony of Sogoni to be heard, Madonsela submitted that the witness’s evidence is relevant and he intended to lead her evidence in respect solely on the aspect of power relationships between judges and secretaries.

He attributed the calling of Sogoni as a witness due to the previous witness, Lisa Vetten, “being called very late in the day”.  

“When all other witnesses had already testified, (then) her summary was only provided to us. We had no way of knowing that the issue of power relations would arise. Nowhere, any time before did the complainant testify… so we could not have put that version,” argued Madonsela.

Prudently asked for clarity by the panel if power dynamics were the only issue that Sogoni would be led on, Madonsela responded in the affirmative. 

Evidence leader Salome Scheepers, however, objected to this, saying that the paragraphs Madonsela said he intended to canvass evidence on are irrelevant.

“I am of the view that it is not relevant. These lines here are completely different from what the case is before us. It’s not placed before us here that the complainant is a seducer. Nothing like that was ever led or put to the complainant,” said Scheepers. 

In part echoing the objection, advocate Nasreen Rajab-Budlender for Mengo, said the over-simplification of Vetten’s evidence was “concerning”.

“Vetten is an expert on gender. Sogoni is not an expert. She is not an expert on gender, she is not an expert on power imbalance. This panel does not need to know about power dynamics from someone who we know has a fractious relationship with the complainant. 

“I submit that you have already heard evidence that deals with power imbalance, and you dealt with that. You heard that the respondent’s concern was to place evidence before this tribunal that concerned the relationships between judges and secretaries. You already had three witnesses come and tell you about that, who are actually secretaries. Sogoni is not a secretary; she is a stenographer,” said Rajab-Budlender.

She further argued that if Mengo were to be recalled, as was suggested, Rajab-Budlender said she held the opinion that there were many times she felt that Mengo should be recalled. 

“There were many things that were not put to the complainant, and if this complainant is recalled, then I submit that she must be asked about all of those things and she must be given an opportunity to contradict that,” said Rajab-Budlender.

After off-camera panel deliberations, the tribunal returned in the absence of Sogoni. 

The Tribunal hearing was adjourned to Monday when Mbenenge is expected to testify. 

chevon.booysen@inl.co.za

Source link