18 March 2026
Judge Nana Makhubele has launched proceedings in the Pretoria High Court to review and set aside findings that she be impeached. Archive photo: Masego Mafata
Activist group #UniteBehind, which laid a complaint against Judge Nana Makhubele more than seven years ago, is strongly opposing her bid to interdict the National Assembly from voting on whether or not to impeach her.
This follows a damning report against her by the Judicial Conduct Tribunal (JCT) and the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), concurring that she was indeed guilty of gross misconduct.
In terms of the Constitution, her fate now lies in the hands of the National Assembly.
But Makhubele has launched proceedings in the Pretoria High Court to review and set aside both the JCT and JSC’s findings. And, in separate court proceedings in the same court, she wants an interdict against the National Assembly, stopping it from proceeding with any vote, pending the outcome of that review.
While the Speaker of Parliament and the National Assembly have said they will abide by the decision of the court, #UniteBehind says if the interdict is granted, it will have a harrowing effect on the constitution, the independence of the judiciary, and the public purse.
Makhubele, it says, has already earned about R10-million since her suspension on full pay in November 2020.
Her review, which it says is doomed to fail, will likely, with appeals, take up to four years to meander through the courts. She will continue to earn her monthly salary, in spite of not providing any judicial service. Should she succeed, she would be able to claim back pay; should she fail, the public purse would not be able to recover the salary paid to her.
Makhubele was found guilty on two charges: that she was the acting chairperson of the board of PRASA while she was an appointed judge; and 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 claims she did neither and did not get a fair hearing.
In her affidavit opposing the interdict, Zukiswa Fokazi, executive director of #UniteBehind, says Makhubele did have a fair hearing and that the bar for an interdict against the National Assembly was high, “a formidable burden” only to be granted in “extremely rare cases”.
“She does not come close to meeting that burden, or even the ordinary requirements for interim relief.”
“The review has little or no prospects of success. She had fair hearing which showed that she refused to perform her duties as judge, against the wishes of the Judge President (JP) so she could remain in service to the executive [as interim chairperson of the board of PRASA].”
“It showed that she manipulated PRASA’s internal processes to benefit a company suing PRASA.”
“The JCT found that her version was intrinsically problematic, it was inconsistent and amounted to a bare denial in the face of vastly credible evidence to the contrary on the crucial aspects of this matter … she was evasive and obstructive. She contradicted herself, and the clear facts.”
“She accused the JP and Deputy Judge President of lying to the JCT while herself seeking to mislead the tribunal,” Fokazi said.
Fokazi also said that Makhubele has brought the interdict application to the wrong court. It should have been lodged in the Western Cape because that is the seat of the National Assembly.
Further, given that Makhubele was still a judge in the Gauteng division, no judge there could hear the matter and #Unitebehind would seek their recusal.
The matter was further complicated by the fact that the former Judge President Dunstan Mlambo and Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba were key witnesses against her at the tribunal, and she had, effectively, accused them of lying.
“We seek an order dismissing the application with costs, alternatively striking it from the roll.”
The interdict application has been set down to be heard on 24 March. But #UniteBehind has written to the acting Judge President Ledwaba, requesting that judges from another division be appointed to hear it.
No response had yet been received.
