[MEDIA STATEMENT] Madlanga Commission

JUDGES MATTER URGES SAPS WITNESSES AT MADLANGA COMMISSION TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIATION FOR A SWIFT REFERRAL OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JUDICIAL OFFICERS

Judges Matter notes with great concern the allegations made against judicial officers by several witnesses at the Madlanga Commission. These allegations relate to bail proceedings in the Gauteng courts. We urge these witnesses to provide substantiating information so that the commission statements can be dealt with as formal complaints to the Judicial Service Commission and the Magistrates Commission, respectively.

In the meantime, and for the sake of the integrity of the judiciary, we urge Acting Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba and Chief Magistrate Vusi Mahlangu to go on special leave while such complaints are lodged.

As we noted in our statement of 14 July 2025, the Madlanga Commission will go a long way in removing the cloud of suspicion that has no doubt been created by General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s 6 July statement. The Commission will allow those implicated to deal with the allegations, for the relevant authorities to take action, or for the allegations to be dismissed for lack of substantiation. Either outcome will assist in upholding the integrity and independence of the judiciary. The longer the allegations linger, the greater the damage they do to the judiciary’s integrity.

At this stage, General Mkhwanazi’s statement, as supported by the statements of Witness A and Witness B, alleges that there might be impropriety involving how bail was granted and bail conditions were set.

General Mkhwanazi states that there was impropriety in Chief Magistrate Vusi Mahlangu granting bail conditions in a case involving General Dumisani Khumalo, but has not detailed what this impropriety relates to, nor given any other information to substantiate these allegations.

Similarly, both Witness A and Witness B suspect impropriety in Katlego “KT” Molefe’s bail appeal, presided over by Acting Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba. They allege that informants told them that Molefe paid R2.5 million for bail to be granted. Both witnesses make strong allegations that such a payment was made to the judge and/or the prosecutor, but no further evidence has so far been presented to substantiate these suspicions.

Section 14 of the Judicial Service Commission Act of 1994 and Section 6A of the Magistrates Act of 1993 require that all complaints against judges and magistrates be submitted on affidavit, with supporting facts, evidence, and information of judicial misconduct.

It is important to underscore that the law prohibits any inquiry into the merits of a judgment. Section 15(2)(c) requires the JSC to summarily dismiss any complaint relating to the merits of a judgment or order.

It is also important to note that Article 11(1)(c) of the Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from entering into public debate about a case, irrespective of criticism levelled against the judge, the judgment, or any aspect of the case.

At this stage, neither the JSC nor the Magistrates Commission can deal with the allegations made until formal misconduct complaints under oath are filed. The statements to the Madlanga Commission do not yet meet the threshold to trigger the investigatory processes of either commission unless they are substantiated.

In terms of Section 19 of the JSC Act, the JSC may only place a judge on suspension based on a recommendation of the Judicial Conduct Committee, after a complaint is filed on affidavit with supporting evidence. Similarly, in terms of Section 13(3) of the Magistrates Act, the Magistrates Commission may only initiate a preliminary investigation and recommend the placement of a magistrate on suspension if it is “satisfied reliable evidence exists”.

These sections underscore the crucial need to ensure that all witnesses at the Madlanga Commission substantiate any allegations. At this point, the relevant authorities are unable to take the necessary action.

We note the statement released by the Judiciary (23 October 2025) indicating that Judge Ledwaba declined to take special leave. In terms of Regulation 5 of the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act of 2001, a judge must voluntarily request special leave, including a written waiver of unreduced remuneration in terms of Section 176(3) of the Constitution. If a judge does not request special leave, no one may place the judge on special leave. This is necessary to protect judicial independence.

Judges Matter’s Alison Tilley adds:

“In Judges Matter’s view, and consistent with all previous cases where serious allegations are made against a judge (including those relating to Judges Selby Mbenenge and Mpina Mathebula), we would urge Judge Ledwaba to step back from his duties as Acting Judge President of the busiest High Court Division in South Africa now that these allegations have been made under oath at an official inquiry. While stepping back is by no means an admission of the credibility of the allegations, it is important to protect the dignity and integrity of the courts.”

In sum, Judges Matter urges the witnesses at the Madlanga Commission to substantiate their statements with evidence, so that those implicated may deal with the allegations and the necessary authorities may take action.

About Judges Matter

Judges Matter is a project dedicated to monitoring the South African judiciary to ensure transparency and accountability. Judges Matter fulfils a watchdog function in relation to the judiciary in South Africa.

Based at the Democratic Governance and Rights Unit at the University of Cape Town’s Law Faculty, Judges Matter conducts applied research and advocacy to monitor the appointment of judges and magistrates, their discipline for misconduct, and how the judiciary is governed and administered.

More information is available at www.judgesmatter.co.za and on Twitter/X: @WhyJudgesMatter

Contact:

Alison Tilley
Judges Matter Co-ordinator
alison@judgesmatter.co.za

Mbekezeli Benjamin
Judges Matter Research and Advocacy Officer
mbekezeli@judgesmatter.co.za