3 March 2026
Suspended Judge Nana Makhubele is fighting to keep her job. Archive photo: Masego Mafata
Suspended Gauteng High Court Judge Nana Makhubele, who is facing impeachment after being found guilty of gross misconduct, is fighting to keep her job.
Makhubele was found guilty by a Judicial Conduct Tribunal (JCT), and the ruling was endorsed by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
She has launched an application in the Pretoria High Court to review and set aside both decisions, claiming that they are unlawful and that her evidence and documents were largely ignored.
While that application is in its early stages, she has also now applied for an urgent interdict seeking to stop the Speaker of the National Assembly from proceeding with the parliamentary processes, which will, in all probability, result in her impeachment.
Makhubele was found guilty on two charges: first, that after she was the acting chairperson of the board of Prasa while she was an appointed judge; and second, that while she chaired the board, she sidelined its legal team and signed off on questionable deals, involving herself in “state capture”.
In her review application, she says she did neither.
In a preliminary step, she has asked for the official records of the tribunal hearing and the JSC deliberations. After she has received the records, she can file a further affidavit.
It is likely that the JSC and #UniteBehind, the civic organisation which laid the initial complaint against her with the JSC, will both oppose that application.
But with impeachment proceedings looming, she is seeking to stop those pending the outcome of the review.
#UniteBehind laid the complaint against her in 2019. She was suspended in November 2020 and has been on full pay. Should she be impeached by Parliament — which requires a two-thirds majority — she will lose all her benefits, including her “salary” for life.
In her affidavit, she said she had written to the Speaker in September 2025 requesting a deferral of the tabling of the JSC report to the National Assembly, citing her intention to launch the review application.
The Speaker had replied two months later, declining the request.
In January this year, she had written again to the Speaker, attaching the review papers.
The Speaker had not responded, and she had received no communication from the chairperson of the justice portfolio committee.
“This is a clear indication that there is no will to grant me the requested indulgence. Furthermore, my apprehension is based on media postings that suggest that the portfolio committee is processing the removal process,” she said.
She said the JSC had already filed the record of proceedings in the review application, and she was perusing the documents with a view to amending her notice of motion and filing a supplementary affidavit.
“Being a constitutional institution, Parliament should be wary of processing a decision that is already under court review. Even if I were to succeed in the review application, the victory would be meaningless.
“I have a right to choose a trade. Even if I were to succeed in the review, my career as a judge would have ended, should the National Assembly return an adverse vote against me,” she said.
“The prejudice is irreversible. The President has no discretion but to remove a judge after the National Assembly has adopted a resolution to do so”.
Makhubele said she had a right to challenge the JSC based on “various irregularities and failures” in its processes, and this right should not be ignored.
She said while there had been a legal funding agreement with the State during the tribunal, “this had not been properly implemented” by the State Attorney, and her legal team had withdrawn.
She had made a fresh application in September 2025, but had not received any response.
“I drafted the review application without any legal assistance.”
Makhubele said the issues raised in the review were important for all judges and the administration of justice.
One was whether a recommended candidate was deemed to be a judge even before he or she took an oath of office.
Further, she submitted, #Unite Behind’s complaint had not been investigated at all, with the JSC placing the burden of summoning or presenting evidence on her.
The interdict application has been set down to be heard on 24 March.
