South African Judge Faces Tribunal Over Bribery Claims as MK Party Demands He Steps Down

Judge Makamu faces formal misconduct inquiry as pressure grows for him to step asideGauteng High Court Judge Mudunwazi Samuel Makamu is facing one of the most serious forms of scrutiny available under South Africa’s judicial-conduct system after allegations of bribery and improper interference with an appeal were referred for investigation by a Judicial Conduct Tribunal.

The allegations are grave. They remain allegations, and Makamu has denied them. But their referral beyond the preliminary complaints process has transformed what began as a dispute between a litigant and a judge into a significant test of judicial accountability.

The uMkhonto weSizwe Party has now entered the debate, publicly calling on Makamu to step aside voluntarily from judicial duties while the tribunal process runs its course. The party argues that a judge facing allegations of this nature should not continue exercising judicial authority until the matter has been resolved. It has simultaneously acknowledged that the referral does not amount to a finding of guilt and that Makamu remains entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.

That distinction is crucial.

What is at stake is not only whether the allegations ultimately prove true, but how South Africa’s institutions manage the period between a serious accusation and a final finding.

The complaint began with an eviction disputeThe case originates in a long-running property dispute involving businessman and attorney Bouwe Wiersma and the Lesedi Local Municipality.

According to the Judicial Conduct Committee’s ruling, Wiersma had become involved in efforts to redevelop the Heidelberg Heritage Museum. Although the municipality had approved a long-term lease in principle, no formal lease was ultimately signed. The dispute later escalated into litigation, and in July 2025 Makamu granted an urgent eviction order against Wiersma.

What allegedly happened after that judgment forms the core of the misconduct complaint.

Wiersma says that two days after the ruling he received a telephone call from a man identifying himself as Judge Makamu. According to the complaint, the caller characterised the judgment as an “injustice”, encouraged Wiersma to appeal and allegedly offered assistance in obtaining a favourable result.

Wiersma further alleged that he received details for lawyers who could assist with the appeal and that further communications followed concerning the case. The Judicial Conduct Committee recorded these allegations as part of the complaint placed before it.

The most serious accusation concerns money.

Wiersma alleged that a contribution was initially sought at a higher amount before being reduced to R5,000. He says he transferred R5,000 to a Capitec account associated, in his understanding, with someone connected to Makamu. The material submitted with his complaint included alleged payment records and WhatsApp material.

He further alleged that the payment was connected to assistance with his attempt to appeal the eviction ruling.

The application for leave to appeal was ultimately unsuccessful.

Makamu denies the allegationsMakamu has rejected the central allegations.

According to the judicial-conduct reporting, he denied communicating with Wiersma before or after the judgment, denied soliciting R5,000 or any other payment, and disputed the suggestion that the bank account involved belonged to him.

That denial matters because the Tribunal is not beginning from a position that corruption has already been established.

There are also discrepancies in the material placed before the judicial authorities. The JCC itself acknowledged inconsistencies and unresolved aspects of Wiersma’s account. But it concluded that the allegations, taken at their highest and assuming they could be established through evidence, were too serious to be dealt with as an ordinary or minor judicial complaint.

That is the procedural threshold that has now been crossed.

It is therefore more accurate to say that the allegations have passed a seriousness test, rather than a definitive credibility test.

The Committee’s ruling is explicit on this point. At this stage, it was not tasked with deciding whether Wiersma was telling the truth. Instead, it asked whether conduct of the kind alleged would amount to gross misconduct if eventually proven. It concluded that it would and recommended investigation by a Tribunal.

Why a Tribunal mattersA Judicial Conduct Tribunal is not simply an internal disciplinary conversation.

South African law reserves this mechanism for allegations potentially serious enough to engage the constitutional process for the removal of a judge. The Judicial Service Commission Act provides for a Tribunal where there are reasonable grounds to suspect incapacity, gross incompetence or gross misconduct. After investigating, the Tribunal reports back to the Judicial Service Commission, which then considers its findings.

The constitutional stakes can therefore be substantial.

Under section 177 of the Constitution, a judge may ultimately be removed from office only if the Judicial Service Commission finds incapacity, gross incompetence or gross misconduct and the National Assembly then supports removal by a two-thirds majority. The President must remove the judge if that parliamentary threshold is met.

The process is deliberately difficult.

That high threshold protects judicial independence by ensuring that judges cannot simply be dismissed because their decisions anger politicians, litigants or powerful interests.

At the same time, independence does not mean immunity from accountability.

The same constitutional architecture provides mechanisms for investigating serious misconduct precisely because public confidence in courts depends on judges being both independent and subject to enforceable ethical standards.

The immediate question is suspension, not removalThe controversy surrounding Makamu is therefore not yet principally about removal from office.

The immediate issue is whether he should continue hearing cases while the Tribunal investigates.

Recent Gauteng High Court rolls show that Makamu continued to preside over matters earlier in September, before the MK Party’s latest public demand.

The Constitution does provide for suspension during serious misconduct proceedings, but the mechanism is institutional rather than automatic. Section 177(3) allows the President to suspend a judge on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission while the relevant procedure is underway.

There is precedent for this.

In 2023, President Cyril Ramaphosa suspended Judges Tintswalo Maumela and Nomonde Mngqibisa-Thusi after the JSC advised suspension while tribunals investigated allegations relating to prolonged delays in delivering judgments.

That precedent does not determine what should happen in Makamu’s case. Each matter has its own facts and procedural history.

But it demonstrates that temporary suspension is an established constitutional option where the JSC considers it appropriate.

The MK Party’s demand should therefore be understood as a political position on what the authorities ought to do next, not as a legal determination that Makamu is automatically required to leave the bench.

Why the allegation is particularly sensitiveJudicial misconduct can take many forms, but allegations involving money from a litigant strike directly at one of the most basic assumptions underpinning a court system: that judicial decisions are made independently of personal benefit.

The JCC itself described the alleged conduct in stark terms when explaining why a Tribunal was appropriate. If the claims were established, they could amount to a judge soliciting and receiving money from a litigant connected to an attempt to influence an appeal arising from his own judgment.

Again, that is a description of what the allegations would mean if proven, not a conclusion that they occurred.

But it explains why the matter cannot easily be treated as an ordinary complaint about judicial temperament, procedure or a disputed ruling.

A litigant who believes a judge has made the wrong legal decision has an appeal process.

An allegation that judicial authority itself was being traded for financial benefit raises an entirely different institutional problem.

Public confidence is part of the equationThe broader stakes reach beyond Judge Makamu personally.

Courts depend heavily on legitimacy. They have no electorate and, unlike the executive, do not command large administrative or security apparatuses of their own. Their authority rests to a considerable extent on the expectation that judicial decisions are lawful, impartial and insulated from improper influence.

That makes perception relevant — but it also creates a difficult balance.

Removing a judge from active duties merely because an accusation has been made could encourage strategic complaints and weaken judicial independence.

Allowing a judge to continue exercising extensive judicial authority after a sufficiently serious complaint has reached Tribunal level can create a different problem: litigants may begin questioning whether proceedings remain institutionally insulated from the controversy surrounding the judge.

South Africa’s judicial-conduct framework attempts to manage those competing risks by separating the stages of the process.

A complaint does not equal guilt.

A Tribunal referral does not equal guilt.

Suspension, where it occurs, is not a conviction.

And removal requires both a JSC finding and an exceptionally high parliamentary threshold.

Accountability without prejudging the caseThat procedural discipline is particularly important in a politically charged case.

The MK Party is entitled to argue that Makamu should step aside, just as others may argue that a judge should remain in office until the constitutionally designated institutions decide otherwise. What ultimately matters is that the question is resolved through the judicial-conduct framework rather than through partisan pressure alone.

The Tribunal now has the more difficult job.

It will need to test the evidence behind Wiersma’s claims, examine the communications and payment material, resolve discrepancies in the competing accounts and give Makamu a full opportunity to respond.

Only after that process can firm conclusions properly be drawn.

For South Africans following the case, the significance therefore lies in two principles that must operate simultaneously: serious allegations against judges cannot be insulated from scrutiny, and serious allegations cannot be treated as established facts merely because they have reached a Tribunal.

That is the institutional test presented by the Makamu case.

The credibility of the system will depend less on which political party speaks loudest about it than on whether the inquiry is demonstrably independent, transparent within the limits of due process, and capable of producing a clear finding based on evidence.

If the allegations are substantiated, South Africa’s constitutional framework provides a route to serious consequences. If they are not, the same process must be capable of clearing the judge’s name.

Either outcome requires the same thing first: a process strong enough to investigate a judge without presuming his guilt, and independent enough that the public can trust the result.