Judicial Conduct Tribunal for Eastern Cape High Court Judge Belinda Hartle

This complaint against Judge Hartle was made by Mr Thozamile Semekazi, an employee of the Office of the Chief Justice, regarding events that took place at the East London High Court on 15 May 2025.

The complaint relates to derogatory and racist remarks Judge Hartle allegedly made towards Mr Semekazi. On the day in question, Mr Semekazi was delivering files to Judge Hartle’s chambers. While Mr Semekazi was talking to Judge Hartle’s secretary, the judge walked in. The secretary then informed the judge that Mr Semekazi was there to deliver the files. Mr Semekazi alleges that, upon hearing this and without waiting for an explanation, Judge Hartle shouted expletives at him, including racist insults. He alleges that this was done out of irritation at the delay in delivery of the files to her chambers. He further states that the insults hurled at him were uttered in the presence of Judge Hartle’s secretary. Mr Semekazi adds that the judge sent him WhatsApp messages later that day to apologise for what she said to him.

Mr Semekazi complains that the events of 15 May 2025 constituted humiliating and demeaning conduct, which caused him to suffer a major depressive disorder and resulted in his being admitted to hospital for treatment.

In Judge Hartle’s response to the complaint, she sets out a similar timeline of events to that put forward by Mr Semekazi, with the key difference being that she states she used only one swear word, and that it was not directed at Mr Semekazi. She accuses him of grossly misrepresenting the interaction between them. Judge Hartle disputes ever using a racist word, but, according to the JCC ruling, does not clarify which swear word was used in this interaction. Lastly, she accuses Mr Semekazi of laying a bogus criminal charge against her with the police.

In terms of section 16(1) of the Judicial Service Commission Act, the chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee is required to assess a complaint and satisfy themselves that, if the complaint is established, it is likely to lead to a finding of gross misconduct. They must then refer the complaint to the full Judicial Conduct Committee for further processing.

During this preliminary stage of the complaint, only the complainant’s statement is on record – the judge’s version of events is not yet on record. Only when it gets to the next stage of the process is the judge invited to give their version, in terms of section 16(2) of the JSC Act.

Deputy Chief Justice Dunstan Mlambo, as acting chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee, classified Mr Semekazi’s complaint as one that, if proven, would constitute gross misconduct on the part of the respondent. He then referred it to the full JCC.

It is not clear when the Judicial Conduct Committee invited Judge Hartle to provide her version of events, nor when she and Mr Semekazi were invited to a hearing to further elaborate on their on-the-record versions of events.

However, a three-judge panel of the JCC (Deputy Chief Justice Dunstan Mlambo, retired Constitutional Court Justice Chris Jafta, and retired Supreme Court of Appeal Justice Halima Saldulker) handed down its decision on 9 December 2025. The JCC panel found that there was a prima facie (probable) case of gross judicial misconduct against Judge Hartle which, if confirmed, could lead to her impeachment.

The JCC’s decision sets out the context of the history of suppression and discrimination on the basis of race in South Africa, and discusses case law showing how racist remarks have been found to be unacceptable by our courts.

Simultaneously, the JCC recommended, in terms of section 16(4) of the JSC Act, that the Judicial Service Commission appoint a Judicial Conduct Tribunal to probe the matter further.

See: JCC Ruling on Hartle (9 December 2025)

In May 2016, a controversy arose when Facebook messages exchanged between commentator Ms Gillian Schutte and Gauteng High Court Judge Mabel Jansen were made public by Ms Schutte. In those messages, Judge Jansen made racist remarks about black men and rape, and about black people in general. Judge Jansen denied the allegations, claiming that the messages were taken out of context. The remarks were reported to the JSC by Advocate Vuyani Ngalwana SC.

The complaint was referred to the Judicial Conduct Committee which, in February 2017, found a prima facie case of gross misconduct and recommended that the JSC appoint a tribunal to investigate the remarks. In April 2017, the JSC accepted the recommendation and asked Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng to appoint the tribunal. However, in May 2017, Judge Jansen resigned as a judge. This brought the complaint to an end.

At its meeting in March 2026, the JSC received the JCC’s recommendation and resolved to instruct the Chief Justice to appoint a Judicial Conduct Tribunal to probe Mr Semekazi’s complaint against Judge Hartle. This is in terms of section 21(1) of the JSC Act.

Complaints referred to a Judicial Conduct Tribunal are those that, if proven, would most likely lead to a finding of gross judicial misconduct, the most serious category of complaints against a judge. A finding of gross judicial misconduct can kickstart the impeachment process and ultimately lead to the removal of a judge from office.

Tribunal members

A Judicial Conduct Tribunal is usually made up of two retired judges and a senior legal practitioner. One of the judges serves as the tribunal president. The tribunal members for the Hartle Tribunal will be announced in due course.

The Tribunal panel sits together to receive the evidence, including testimony from witnesses and arguments from both the complainant and the judge. The Tribunal president has the responsibility to ensure that the tribunal proceeds fairly in terms of the JSC Act and its regulations, including ensuring fairness to both sides.

The Tribunal panel has collective responsibility for producing the Tribunal Report, which must include an assessment of the evidence and its findings on whether there was misconduct or not. This report will be submitted to the JSC in terms of section 20 of the JSC Act for a final decision.

In its work, the Tribunal is supported by the JSC Secretariat.

In terms of section 24(1) of the JSC Act, the Tribunal President must consult the Minister of Justice and the National Director of Public Prosecutions to appoint an Evidence Leader, who is drawn from the ranks of senior prosecutors in the National Prosecuting Authority.

Process of investigation

A Tribunal investigates the allegations levelled in the complaint and submits a report of its findings to the JSC.

The Tribunal may conduct its investigation through (section 26 of the JSC Act):

1. collecting evidence;
2. conducting a formal hearing;
3. making findings of fact; and
4. making a determination on the merits of the allegations levelled against a judge accused of misconduct.

The Tribunal is entitled to subpoena documents and may call witnesses to testify at the hearing. All evidence and testimony before the tribunal must be given under oath. It is therefore a crime to give false evidence or testimony at the tribunal. It is also a crime for a witness to fail to attend a tribunal hearing without an excuse, or to refuse to answer questions. Anyone who hinders or obstructs the functions of the tribunal may also be found guilty of a crime. The Tribunal must begin and conclude its work without unreasonable delay.

Tribunal terms of reference

The terms of reference setting out what the tribunal may inquire into are decided by the Chief Justice when she appoints the tribunal.

Chief Justice Mandisa Maya has confirmed the Hartle Tribunal’s terms of reference to be that:

1. The Tribunal must investigate all the allegations contained in Semekazi’s complaint, including allegations of discriminatory language.
2. The Tribunal must investigate whether these allegations prove that Judge Hartle is guilty of gross misconduct in terms of section 177 of the Constitution.
3. The Tribunal must prepare a report on these findings and deliver it to the JSC.

In its report to the JSC, the Tribunal must set out its factual findings, whether there have been breaches of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and whether the judge is guilty of gross misconduct in terms of section 177 of the Constitution.

The JSC (sitting without the Members of Parliament) then has to consider the tribunal’s findings and recommendations and formulate its own decision on whether the judge must be found guilty (or not guilty) of gross misconduct in terms of section 177 of the Constitution.

If the JSC finds the judge guilty of gross misconduct, the JSC must decide whether this justifies the judge being removed from office through impeachment. If it does, the JSC must then make this recommendation to the National Assembly by sending the tribunal report and its own decision to the Speaker.