**Revelation on the Judicial Services Commission’s decision regarding Eastern Cape Court President Judge Selby Mbenenge**
The Judicial Services Commission’s (JSC) controversial decision not to recommend the suspension of Eastern Cape Court President Judge Selby Mbenenge has sparked growing concerns since reports emerged that he Reportedly filed a criminal injuria complaint against an aspiring lawyer accusing her of sexual harassment.
According to sources close to the process, the decision taken in early February by the “small JSC” – which excludes members of parliament – was neither easy nor obvious and went against established precedents.
Some judges have been suspended while investigations into allegations of serious misconduct are carried out, while having to complete the cases they were handling at the time. The question then arises in the case of presiding judge Mbenenge, already on special leave awaiting a court decision in the context of the harassment allegations.
The decision not to recommend Mbenenge’s suspension was justified by the fact that he was already on special leave, but this justification appears to be inconsistent with previous suspension recommendations issued by the JSC in similar cases.
The emergence of a criminal complaint filed by Mbenenge against Andiswa Mengo highlights an additional troubling dimension to this case. It raises questions about the credibility given to women who report cases of sexual harassment perpetrated by powerful men.
Mbenenge’s impeccable reputation as presiding judge undoubtedly weighed in this decision, as did other considerations not directly related to the case. However, these elements appear to be out of step with the standards of conduct expected in such situations.
It is clear that the situation is more complex than it appears, and that key elements may not have been taken into consideration when making the decision.
The JSC defended its position by saying that the criminal case would not impact its judgment, but this raises questions about the ethics and objectivity of its decisions.
It is crucial that justice is delivered in a fair and transparent manner, regardless of the position held by those involved. As guarantors of the integrity of the judicial system, it is imperative that the competent bodies act with responsibility and impartiality.
It remains to be seen how this case will evolve and what lessons can be learned from it for the future of our justice system.