The judicial conduct tribunal of Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge has revived an uncomfortable, but necessary, conversation about sexual harassment in a profession tasked with upholding the law
It marks the first time a judicial conduct tribunal is investigating such allegations and commentators say it could prove a reckoning that reshapes how the legal profession responds to abuse of power within its ranks.
Chriscy Blouws, lead attorney at the Women’s Legal Centre, said each woman’s experience of sexual harassment is different and that young women entering the profession as interns or candidate attorneys face compounded vulnerability.
The allegations against Mbenenge, who is accused of sending persistent and inappropriate messages to court secretary Andiswa Mengo, have prompted intense debate about what constitutes harassment.
Mbenenge denies any wrongdoing and insists the exchanges were consensual. But testimony heard at the tribunal, and the profession’s broader reaction, suggest that consent cannot be separated from the power dynamics.
During cross-examination in January, Mengo explained that her attempts to rebuff Mbenenge were framed by professional boundaries and the fear of retaliation.
“Given the hierarchical structures that exist in all workspaces, women are often subjected to overt or subtle forms of sexual harassment through either physical conduct, inappropriate comments or messages on platforms that ought to be used for workplace communications,” she said.
Mbekezeli Benjamin, research and advocacy officer at Judges Matter, said the case would prove a test of the judiciary’s commitment to accountability.
“The tribunal is nearly midway through its hearings and it’s still too early to make an overall assessment of how effectively it has handled this case. It is notable that this is the first major case of sexual harassment to be investigated by a judicial conduct tribunal, so in some ways the Mbenenge tribunal is sailing in unchartered waters,” he told the Mail & Guardian.
Benjamin said the decision to hold the proceedings in public was vital because the public had a right to know whether those entrusted with power could be trusted to use it ethically.
The tribunal seeks to determine whether a judge has violated the Judicial Code of Conduct and whether they remain fit for office, and if found guilty, may be impeached.
A 2024 study by the International Bar Association found that 43% of women in South Africa’s legal sector had experienced sexual harassment and one in four had considered leaving the profession as a result.
Blouws said the numbers were telling but the individual stories revealed an unspoken vulnerability of women, adding women in law, especially black women, often have to contend with multiple layers of marginalisation shaped by race, class and professional rank.
Candidate attorneys are especially vulnerable because they rely on senior practitioners for references, mentorship and employment. That dependency, Blouws said, makes it more difficult to speak out against misconduct.
Nkatha Murungi, assistant director at the Centre for Human Rights, stressed that sexual harassment was not only about desire, but about power, and the legal profession’s hierarchical nature allowed abuse of power to go unchallenged.
The tribunal has been postponed until June to allow testimony from gender expert Lisa Vetten, a decision welcomed by many observers. Evidence leader Salome Scheepers argued that the allegations must be understood within a framework of gendered power, not just legal procedure.
Murungi said sexual harassment is shaped by social norms, legal gaps and institutional silence. A gender expert, she said, could help explain how power and patriarchy influence workplace behaviour, “beyond the individual conduct implicated in the current case”.
Vetten’s testimony is expected to provide a nuanced context to the interactions between Mbenenge and Mengo and to explore how women often resist harassment in ways that are easily misinterpreted.
Blouws said politeness is often a survival strategy, not an invitation, and should not be mistaken for consent. Murungi said expert input is needed to challenge the misuse of legal technicalities that are too often deployed to discredit complainants.
Mbenenge’s legal counsel has argued that the power dynamic between him and Mengo has been misunderstood, claiming that her mention of money was a form of powerplay.
Blouws said Mengo never asked him for money, per se, when the judge requested photos of her naked, but rather hinted at it as a way to make him stop
Murungi said the remark was an attempt to make Mbenenge uncomfortable in a non-confrontational way to signal that his behaviour was unwelcome. Such gestures, she said, reflect the delicate strategies women employ to protect themselves in toxic workplaces.
Chris Oxtoby, research consultant at Freedom Under Law, said the tribunal should not rely on legal instinct alone, and expert evidence could help it understand the nuances of harassment, especially its more subtle and persistent forms.
Murungi believes it is asking fundamental questions about how power is used, how dignity is protected and how harm is addressed. Hence, she said, the tribunal could set a critical precedent if it affirms that harassment — whether verbal, digital or psychological — is incompatible with judicial office.
Blouws said the legal community prides itself on fairness and objectivity, but has often failed to confront its own shortcomings. But this case meant that it could no longer look the other way. If it claims to stand for justice, it must ensure that its institutions are places of safety and fairness for all.
Experts say sexual harassment remains pervasive in South Africa’s legal system, especially among candidate attorneys and court secretaries
