Mengo used ‘different tactics’ to ‘avoid’ Mbenenge advances
The Judicial Conduct Tribunal hearing that is probing sexual harassment allegations against Eastern Cape Judge President Selby Mbenenge resumed in Sandton on Monday.
Gender expert Lisa Vetten testified on the power dynamics surrounding the case.
READ: Gender expert Lisa Vetten to testify at Mbenenge hearing
The judge president faces misconduct claims brought by High Court secretary Andiswa Mengo, who accuses Mbenenge of making unwanted sexual advances towards her between 2021 and 2022.
This is the third sitting since the tribunal first convened in January.
READ MORE: Origins of Mbenenge’s ‘explicit image’ undetermined: Expert
Though there is reference to other evidential material since the hearings began, Vetten says she only analysed the WhatsApp exchange between Mbenenge and his accuser.
But before that, she explained the dynamics of consent in the context of unequal power.
“The coercive circumstances you can think about as recognition that it is a so-called choice, in a context of no choice or constrained choice. The coercive circumstances are saying to us, ‘Look at the context’, yes or no doesn’t occur in a vacuum. [We must] look at what’s going on around that person, and what are the pressures on them? Have they given meaningful consent?”
According to Vetten, Mbenenge and Mango exchanged over 800 WhatsApp text messages over seven months.
In her breakdown, the expert found over 500 messages were from the judge president, and about 300 were from Mengo.
She said over time, the frequency of Mengo’s responses began to wane.
“So, where you have 60, 32, 84 texts, it's now down to one to three, to a maximum of six. You also see that the complainant is responding less and less often. There are days when she is not responding at all.”
Tribunal chair, retired judge Bernard Ngoepe, questioned whether Vetten was making assumptions when she told the hearing that Mengo was reluctant to yield to Mbenenge’s request for a topless picture of herself.
Vetten said the complainant had used different methods to avoid responding to the judge president’s advances, including deflecting, delaying, and avoiding the response.
ALSO READ:
