Eastern Cape judge president, Selby Mbenenge. (Judges Matter)
The judicial conduct tribunal into Eastern Cape judge president Selby Mbenenge heard on Monday that CCTV footage from the date of the alleged incident of indecent exposure was not stored — despite footage from the day before and after having been preserved.
The director of facilities and security management at the office of the chief justice, Prabagaran Naidoo, testified that he received CCTV footage from 14 and 16 November 2022 from the Mthatha high court.
The complainant in the matter, 37-year-old court secretary Andiswa Mengo, has said she is unsure whether the alleged office sexual harassment by the judge occurred on 14 or 15 November 2022. She testified earlier that she fled Mbenenge’s office in shock afterwards, and expected CCTV footage to corroborate her account. But footage from 15 November, one of the dates on which the alleged incident is believed to have occurred, is missing.
The tribunal is in its second week after resuming this month from its initial sitting in January, during which Mengo endured eight days of cross-examination.
Mengo says the sexual harassment occurred over Whatsapp and in-person, and an alleged flashing incident now in dispute.
Naidoo told the tribunal he “can’t say” what happened to the missing footage. Footage from 14 and 16 November 2022 was transferred to the Midrand office of the chief justice almost a year later, he said.
According to Naidoo, he received a call from Norman Mabuza, the Eastern Cape court’s head of security, after Judge Bantubonke Dakota requested to review footage from the 14th and 15th.
“In his affidavit, Judge Dakota says he viewed footage from 14 and 15 November. But the footage stored and transferred was of the 14 and 16 November,” counsel for Mengo, Nasreen Rajab-Budlender said.
Naidoo acknowledged the discrepancy and confirmed that the only footage he requested to be downloaded and preserved was what Dakota had viewed. He said he realised the importance of the footage only after the story appeared in the media.
Naidoo also testified that each court has a control room where footage is stored for 45 to 60 days, and may later be transferred to the office of the chief justice’s central servers.
Naidoo had asked that the relevant footage be couriered to his office in Midrand on a USB.
“Whether this evidence was tampered with, I cannot confirm,” he said, adding that he had told Mabuza at the time: “If a judge took time to view the footage, it might amount to something later on. So just save it and keep it.”
Naidoo admitted he cannot account for the missing footage of the 15th.
Mbenenge has denied the allegation and claimed he could account for his movements on the day in question, including giving a morning lecture to students, a visit to a bank and seeing Mengo only later in the day in the company of another colleague.
His counsel, advocate Griffith Madonsela, pointed out that CCTV footage from 14 November shows Mengo walking past Mbenenge’s office twice without entering.
Dakota, in his affidavit, confirmed that in the footage he viewed, Mbenenge was seen arriving with a briefcase and leaving with it. He said she did not appear in the footage he reviewed.
Both counsel for Mengo and Mbenenge were surprised the footage was missing and said it would have supported either one of their cases.
The tribunal continues this week with counsel for Mbenenge, advocate Muzi Sikhakhane SC, saying he is ready to call his client to the witness stand as early as Tuesday morning.