Judge Mbenenge Defends Himself in Sexual Harassment Tribunal, Claims Encounters Were Consensual

by Jason Darries, 11 Jul 2025, Justice

13 Comments

Judge Mbenenge Faces Tribunal Over Harassment Claims

Eastern Cape High Court Judge President Selby Mbenenge is under the spotlight, fighting for his legal and professional reputation as the Judicial Conduct Tribunal tries to untangle serious sexual harassment allegations. The hearings, which picked up again in May 2025 and ran through early July, have drawn close attention—both for the details of the accusations and what the outcome could mean for the country's broader standards of judicial conduct.

The case started when Andiswa Mengo, a judges' secretary, came forward alleging that Mbenenge made unwanted sexual advances toward her. She took her complaint to the judiciary’s oversight bodies, setting off formal misconduct proceedings that could result in Mbenenge being impeached and removed from the bench. The stakes are high—not just for him, but for how claims of this nature are handled when they involve top judicial figures.

During three days of cross-examination from July 8-10, 2025, Judge Mbenenge tried to steer the conversation to the specifics. His message was simple: the law should be the guide, not personal moral codes. He pushed back hard against the characterization of his behavior as coercive or predatory, insisting that his interactions with Mengo were consensual. According to him, Mengo did not say no or object to his advances, and both parties agreed at one point to delete explicit WhatsApp messages from their phones.

Mbenenge explained that the reason behind erasing those messages was not to conceal any misconduct, but rather to protect his family's privacy, since his phone could be accessed by his children. This point became a key part of his defense—suggesting it was more about discretion than guilt.

The Legal and Ethical Stakes

The tribunal, led by retired Gauteng High Court Judge President Bernard Ngoepe, has heard detailed accounts about what happened between the two. The evidence includes digital communications, personal testimony, and arguments about exactly where the line should be drawn between unprofessional behavior and criminal conduct in a workplace built on hierarchy and respect.

For Mbenenge, a lot rides on whether the tribunal agrees with his take that this is a legal matter—more about what can be proven regarding consent—rather than a test of character or adherence to societal norms. He strongly maintained that moral or religious beliefs shouldn't decide the case’s outcome. Instead, he says the standard should focus on whether his actions were genuinely unwanted by Mengo. Previous cases and court precedents about workplace conduct and consent are all being looked at, since the ruling could shape future cases involving judges and subordinates.

While the cross-examination phase wrapped up as of July 10, the tribunal process is not over. The findings could lead to one of the most significant judicial consequences in recent South African memory, especially given the senior position Mbenenge holds. The legal system, judicial accountability, and protections for complainants in the justice sector are all facing scrutiny as this high-profile case moves toward a verdict.

Byron Marcos Gonzalez 11 Jul

Oh dear, the courtroom drama just turned into a Shakespearean tragedy where the judge waltzes between law and lust :) the very notion that a senior jurist would gamble with consent is, frankly, a spectacle that would make even the most seasoned playwright blush the stakes are monumental and every word spoken feels like a curtain call for the entire judiciary

Chris Snyder 11 Jul

From a procedural standpoint the tribunal is obliged to assess the evidence impartially, and the fact that the messages were deleted does not automatically imply guilt :) the key will be whether any corroborating testimony can establish a lack of consent, and the legal framework clearly separates harassment from consensual interaction when power dynamics are involved

Hugh Fitzpatrick 11 Jul

Sure, because “we both agreed to delete the texts” totally erases the power imbalance – classic logic, right?

george hernandez 11 Jul

The role of a judge is to embody impartiality, yet the very human elements of desire can sometimes blur the lines that the law attempts to draw. When a senior official engages with a subordinate, the inherent hierarchy cannot be ignored by any legal scholar. Consent under such circumstances is a nuanced concept that demands careful scrutiny. The tribunal’s mandate is to peel back the layers of personal interaction and expose any coercive undertones. Even if verbal affirmation was given, the presence of authority can render that affirmation less than fully voluntary. Psychological research consistently shows that power differentials can impair the ability to refuse. This case therefore serves as a litmus test for how South African institutions handle those dynamics. The deletion of messages, while framed as a protective measure for family, also eliminates a potential source of evidence. Judges, like all public officials, are expected to maintain higher standards of transparency. The public’s confidence in the judiciary hinges on visible accountability. If the tribunal concludes that the conduct was appropriate, it may set a precedent that diminishes the seriousness of similar claims. Conversely, a finding of misconduct could reinforce the principle that no one is above scrutiny. The legal community has been watching closely, anticipating the ripple effects of the verdict. In the end, the outcome will likely influence future policy on workplace relationships within the justice system. Regardless of the result, the conversation about consent, power, and professional ethics will continue to evolve long after the hearings are archived.

bob wang 11 Jul

Dear colleagues, it is incumbent upon us to recognize that the allegations presented warrant a rigorous examination of both statutory provisions and ethical guidelines,; indeed, the jurisprudence surrounding workplace harassment has evolved considerably over recent decades,; therefore, the tribunal must consider precedents such as *Mthembu v. Department of Justice* and the *Harassment Act* while also weighing the specific facts at hand,; only through such a comprehensive analysis can a just determination be rendered 😊😊

Seyi Aina 11 Jul

Man, this judge thinks he can just brush off serious claims because he “deleted some texts” – looks like a classic case of thinking he’s above the rules.

Alyson Gray 11 Jul

oh wow, this is sooo intense!! i can’t even imagine the stress that all parties are going thru… it’s like a real life courtroom drama and i’m just here shouting “justice for all” lol i feel for the secretary, i feel for the judge, it’s all a mess but someone’s gotta stand up.

Shaun Collins 11 Jul

This is just another power play.

Chris Ward 11 Jul

Honestly i think they’re making a big fuss over nothing – maybe the whole thing is overblown?

Heather Stoelting 11 Jul

Let’s keep the conversation positive we can all learn from this we need better policies and support for everyone involved 🙌

Travis Cossairt 11 Jul

looks like the tribunal will take its time to sort this out we’ll see what comes out of it eventually

Amanda Friar 11 Jul

Well if the judge’s defense hinges on “we both agreed to delete the chats,” maybe next they’ll argue that a handshake seals consent – sarcasm aside, the legal focus should stay on power dynamics.

Sivaprasad Rajana 11 Jul

In the end, a fair system must balance authority with humility, ensuring that those in power are held to the same standards as anyone else.