36 Pearson Street
Eshowe
KwaZulu-Natal
31 January 2025
Your ref: JSC 533/17
The Honourable Chief Justice Mandisa Maya,
Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission
By email to JSC Secretary Mbali Sonca:
msongca@judiciary.org.za
Dear Chief Justice Maya
BRINK v WAGLAY JP
GROSS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT
STILL UNDECIDED AFTER SEVEN-AND-A-HALF YEARS
1. In July 2017, I lodged with the Judicial Service Commission (‘JSC’) an impeachable judicial misconduct complaint of unprecedented gravity against Basheer Waglay, then-Judge President of the Labour- and Labour Appeal Courts. A copy is annexed marked ‘A1’.
2. Although now retired and succeeded for the time being by Edwin Molahleli AJP, I’ll continue referring to him as Waglay JP. And to distinguish my complaint against him from other unrelated judicial misconduct complaints mentioned herein, I’ll refer to it as the Complaint. All further annexures hereto will be simply named ‘A2’, ‘A3’ etc.
3. Then-JSC Secretary Lynette Bios acknowledged receipt of my Complaint a few weeks later in August. See ‘A2’.
4. Oddly, her letter of acknowledgment gave the same JSC reference number for my Complaint against Waglay JP and for my several quite different complaints against Mlambo JP filed around the same time.
5. My Complaint charged Waglay JP with having corruptly rejected a petition for leave to appeal under improper influence, effected on him by way of an anonymous, unsigned, undated ‘memorandum’ importuning him to dismiss my case by denigrating me personally, lying about the issues before the trial court, and lying about the issues on appeal.
6. All this was clearly contrived to defeat the ends of justice by prejudicing Waglay JP against me as petitioner, by misdirecting and misleading him as to the issues before him for decision, and by inducing him to reject my petition without considering its merits. The unambiguous burden of the ‘memorandum’ was that I was a distracted fool and that my petition was fit only for the rubbish bin.
7. The person who forged the ‘memorandum’ and uttered it to Waglay JP perfectly succeeded in his corrupt project, in that Waglay JP summarily dismissed my petition, right in the middle of a pending condonation application brought by the respondent in the case, namely Legal Aid SA (‘LASA’) – before all the prescribed papers in its application had been filed; before that application had been decided; before LASA’s out-of-time affidavit opposing my petition was properly before court; and accordingly before my petition was ripe for decision.
8. The nut of my Complaint was that Waglay JP violated his judicial oath to administer justice fairly and impartially.
9. More particularly, Waglay JP demonstrated his greater personal loyalty to the criminal author of the ‘memorandum’ – almost certainly a long-time judicial colleague of his (identified in my Complaint) with a direct interest in seeing my petition fail – over any principled loyalty to the oath he took on being appointed as a judge.
10. A retired accountant friend of mine found this ‘memorandum’ in the court file while making an inventory of its contents at my request during my investigation of the plainly irregular circumstances in which my petition had been prematurely dismissed – without regard to its merits, such as, inter alia, the trial judge’s fatal misallocation of the final burden of proof in the case, thus completely vitiating his judgment, which most basic error pointed out in my appeal notice both the judge and LASA frankly conceded. Needless to say, unlike the other documents in the court file, the ‘memorandum’ is unstamped – meaning this criminal instrument didn’t go over the Registrar’s counter, collecting a stamp in the usual fashion on its way into the court file. Quite the opposite, it reached Waglay JP under the counter, so to speak, and naturally so, being designed to illegally pervert the decision of my petition.
11. On learning from my friend’s report over the telephone that evening of the presence of this strange ‘memorandum’ in the court file and then hearing his summary from memory of its shocking contents, I asked him to return to court the following day to request the Registrar to photocopy it for me, and to certify the inventory of the court file’s contents, including this document, that my friend had now typed up from his original manuscript note.
12. The photocopy of the ‘memorandum’ made by the Registrar, the inventory made by my friend that he certified, and my friend’s confirmatory affidavit about all this are attached to my Complaint.
13. Incredibly at first blush, yet flatly exposed and incontestably proved by his own court records, Waglay JP compounded his most egregious violation of his judicial oath in my matter by proceeding to perpetrate a criminal fraud on me, for which he stands to be jailed. This is described below.
14. My Complaint about Waglay JP’s judicial corruption in disposing of my petition so dishonestly contrasts fundamentally with my eight complaints against Mlambo JP, also filed in mid-2017, the most serious of which Constitutional Court Justice Elizabeth Nkabinde and Supreme Court of Appeal Justice Ephraim Makgoka found well-founded on 19 February 2024 on the documentary and other evidence I’d presented – recommending accordingly that he be summoned to answer them before a Judicial Conduct Tribunal.
15. The difference between my Complaint against Waglay JP and my complaints against Mlambo JP is that the latter concerned his repeated criminal mendacity and other capital misconduct committed as Chairperson of LASA’s Board of Directors at the time, not in his capacity as a judge.
16. These eight complaints charged him with telling multiple criminal lies to the Justice Portfolio of the National Assembly in a false ‘confidential’ report he made to pervert a parliamentary inquiry it had instituted into high-level recruitment corruption at LASA, and into its national management executives’ repeated and persistent suppression of documents I’d duly requested under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (‘PAIA’), in which furtive illegal and unconstitutional concealment he was complicit, as communication records annexed to my complaints unequivocally proved; lying to the Justice Minister in a separate, similarly false report to him, submitted to the same corrupt end, i.e. to pervert the Minister’s own, separate, independently instituted inquiry into these unlawful irregularities; criminally suborning defamatory perjury in a false affidavit he instructed his attorney to make in order to corruptly prejudice a court against me and thereby defeat my application for leave to subpoena him for cross examination on (a) the said profusion of criminal and other lies he told these highest executive and oversight authorities, and (b) his repeated and persistent collusion in and connivance at the malicious, corrupt, illegal and unconstitutional suppression of public body records duly requested under PAIA, in furtherance of a recruitment corruption cover-up and in violation of my fundamental right to information guaranteed by section 32(1)(a) of the Constitution.
17. In other words, my complaints against Mlambo JP concerned his criminal and other impeachable misconduct committed off the bench, in contradistinction to my Complaint against Waglay JP, which concerned his impeachable judicial misconduct committed not just as a judge but as head of the entire Labour Court system and as its highest appellate authority therein, requiring the highest public trust.
18. On 11 June 2018, nearly a year after making my Complaint, I asked Secretary Bios when I might expect Waglay JP’s response to it. Three days later on the 14th, she replied that she couldn’t find my Complaint and requested a copy by email, which I provided the same day. See our email exchange recording this, ‘A3’.
19. Eight days later, on 22 June 2018, Secretary Bios sent me Waglay JP’s response to my Complaint. See ‘A4’.
20. Her covering letter again bore the same JSC reference number that she’d given my complaints against Mlambo JP.
21. On 9 July 2018, a couple of weeks later, I delivered my invited comments on Waglay JP’s truly pathetic response, comprehensively taking it to pieces. See ‘A5’. My covering email to which my comments were attached is ‘A6’.
22. Six months after this, on 11 February 2019, Secretary Bios telephoned to ask me for a signed copy of my Complaint, and I emailed it the same day. See ‘A7’.
23. On 29 November 2019, a further nine silent months down the track, I wrote to then JSC Chairperson Mogoeng Mogoeng CJ protesting the JCC’s failure to have decided my Complaint against Waglay JP, as well as my several complaints against Mlambo JP, in regard to which all the papers were also in and the JCC’s decision was equally overdue. See ‘A8’. The courier’s tracking service report, vouching the delivery of my letter, is ‘A9’.
24. On 18 February 2020, two-and-a-half months after this, and apparently in response to my letter to Mogoeng CJ, new JSC Secretary Sello Chiloane telephoned me from his office well after-hours at 20h33, requesting that I urgently provide yet another set of copies of my complaints against Waglay JP and Mlambo JP and all further documents in these matters. Which I did a couple of hours later the same night via Dropbox. My log of his call is ‘A10’. (I’d saved his number after a call from him some years earlier in a different connection, so his name showed up on my phone when he called again.) My email providing him with a hyperlink to copies of all these requested documents in PDF, and his acknowledgment, is ‘A11’.
25. On 18 August 2020, six silent months after this, I wrote to Secretary Chiloane, enquiring when I might expect the decision of my complaints. He didn’t respond. My letter to him is ‘A12’. Proof of delivery by email is ‘A13’.
26. On 29 November 2020, after a further three months, I wrote to then-JCC Chairperson Zondo DCJ, repeating my plea that my complaints be decided at last. My letter to him, enclosing a copy of my November 2019 letter to then-Chief Justice Mogoeng, is ‘A14’. The courier’s waybill is ‘A15’.
27. I copied that letter by ordinary mail to then-Chief Justice Mogoeng; to Jake Jacobs: Chief Director, Office of the Secretary General, Office of the Chief Justice; to Memme Sejosengwe: Secretary General, Office of the Chief Justice; and to Nathi Ncube: Spokesman, Office of the Chief Justice. My letters to them are bundled as ‘A16’.
28. On learning of the SAPO courier service’s failure to deliver my letter to Zondo DCJ, I wrote to him again on 31 January 2021. See ‘A17’. For the reason mentioned in my second letter I now used ordinary post, but copied it to Secretary Chiloane by email a couple of days later to ensure he got it, at least in PDF. My email to him is ‘A18’.
29. On 17 February 2021, then-Judiciary Spokesperson Nathi Mncube acknowledged receipt of my November 2020 letter to Zondo DCJ, to which I’d attached a copy of my letter to Mogoeng CJ, and provided some email addresses for use in any further correspondence. See ‘A19’.
30. On 8 July 2021, JCC member Dumisani Zondi JA perfunctorily dismissed my complaints against Mlambo JP – against which I successfully appealed, as said above. All case documents in PDF and further developments in that matter can be read at corrupt judges.co.za and illegal aid.co.za/JSC/Mlambo_JP.
31. On 30 September 2021, seven-and-a-half months after Spokesman Ncube’s acknowledgment in February 2021 of my first letter to Zondo DCJ enclosing my letter to Mogoeng CJ, and still no decision of my Complaint, I requested under PAIA, ‘The JCC chairperson’s allocation of Brink’s gross misconduct complaint against Waglay JP to one or more other JCC members for investigation in 2017.’ See item 7 on my list of requested records, a relevant excerpt of which is ‘A20’. (The entire 27-page request is accessible via the hyperlink provided in paragraph 35 just below.)
32. The JSC ignored my request for this record and the others I’d specified – a deemed refusal of access under section 27 of PAIA – and in April 2022 I had to sue for it out of the High Court at Pietermaritzburg under case number 5042/22P.
33. In July 2022, substantially conceding my court application, the JSC finally responded to my request by alleging in paragraph 21 of its answering affidavit: ‘The complaint by the applicant was allocated randomly to Justice Goliath. There is no letter to that effect.’ A relevant excerpt of this affidavit is ‘A21’.
34. I treated this sworn statement as belated compliance with section 23 of PAIA, which requires that non-existent records requested under section 18 of that Act be certified as such on affidavit.
35. My application, my founding affidavit supporting it to which my full PAIA request was annexed, and the JSC’s complete answering affidavit are all accessible in PDF at illegal aid.co.za/JSC/PAIA/Application.
36. It’s not relevant to discuss here in any detail the legally clueless and bad faith defences that the JSC raised against me to now actively obstruct my access to other embarrassing and compromising records that I’d requested, save to point out that ‘privileged’ is not a lawful ground for refusing access to a record duly requested under PAIA, and a manifestly serious request cannot be ‘vexatious’ merely on account of its palpable and alarming potential to expose the judge under suspicion and investigation to impeachment and removal from the bench for gross misconduct.
37. In other words, the JSC is illegally and unconstitutionally obstructing my access to the records that it’s now deliberately hiding from me, and it’s doing maliciously and corruptly to protect a senior judge, suspected on reliable, independently sourced and confirmed information of the most serious misconduct.
38. It follows that the JSC currently stands exposed to a declaration by the High Court, as sought in my notice of motion, that it’s violated my constitutionally entrenched and guaranteed fundamental civil right to information held by the state and its organs in the democratic era, in first failing to respond to my duly acknowledged PAIA request as it was legally and constitutionally obliged to do, and then – profoundly aggravating this – in raising obviously legally and factually spurious defences (a) to cover up the specific judicial corruption I was probing, following a tip received from and then confirmed by well-placed third parties, and (b) to hinder my formal complaint about it to the JSC, as urged generally by President Cyril Ramaphosa on 22 February 2021: ‘Anyone who has any evidence of any wrongdoing by any judge should make use of the avenues provided in our Constitution and in our law to ensure that appropriate action is taken.’
39. I quote the President urging this in my letter to then-Chief Justice Mogoeng on 25 February 2021, reporting my meeting a couple of days earlier with former President Jacob Zuma at his request for a briefing at his house on my complaints against Mlambo JP, of which he’d got wind – at which meeting I briefed him also about my Complaint against Waglay JP, and Mlambo JP’s almost certain authorship of the criminal ‘memorandum’ that successfully torpedoed my petition. My said letter, mentioning this, is annexure ‘A22’; my covering email is ‘A23’; its acknowledgement by the JSC with an undertaking to pass it to then-Deputy Chief Justice Zondo is ‘A24’; and, copying the letter to the President, my covering email to him and its acknowledgment are ‘A25’.
40. It hardly needs emphasizing how exceedingly serious a matter it is that to cover for and protect a corrupt senior judge, the JSC is itself corruptly withholding documentary evidence about his extreme misconduct (as alleged and confirmed to me by two eminently reliable sources) – documents that I’ve duly requested under PAIA, and which section 32(1)(a) in the Bill of Rights contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution entitles me to access as a fundamental civil right.
41. Under section 14(2) of the Judicial Service Commission Act (‘JSC Act’), the Chairperson of the JCC receives and examines all new complaints, assesses whether they are unserious and fit for summary dismissal under section 15; or are prima facie serious but non-impeachable and justiciable by a single judge under section 17; or are prima facie impeachable under section 16 – and he or she deals with them accordingly,
42. The allocation of my manifestly impeachable Complaint to Patricia Goliath DJP, a single judge, would indicate that then JCC Chairperson Zondo DCJ reckoned my charge against Waglay JP was serious but non impeachable, judiciable merely under section17 of the JSC Act, and trivially sanctionable under subsection 8.
43. But quite the contrary, since my Complaint charged Waglay JP with having committed the supreme judicial offence of betraying his oath as a judge, on any honest, intelligent and attentive reading Zondo DCJ would have appreciated that such judicial corruption was eminently impeachable.
44. It follows that Zondo DCJ could not possibly have read my Complaint thoughtfully before allocating it to a single judge to decide as a non impeachable matter under section 17. He just pretended to.
45. On 13 March 2023, after another eight months of inaction on my Complaint, and having by now reached the conclusion that the JSC was not interested in carrying out its basic statutory function of disciplining delinquent judges and eliminating corruption in the judiciary, even when squarely documented and proven beyond any doubt, and that it would not act unless pressed to do so from above or outside, I prepared and submitted to the Director General of the State Security Agency (‘SSA DG’) a specimen draft intelligence report entitled ‘JUDICIAL CORRUPTION IN SOUTH AFRICA’ (‘Report’) for delivery to President Ramaphosa after editing it at will. The Report is ‘A26’, my covering letter ‘A27’, and proof of delivery by courier ‘A28’.
46. My intention in drawing and submitting the Report was to alert the President to the JSC’s demonstrated unwillingness to address the corruption among our senior judges that I’d duly reported to it, and to put him on notice that I consequently proposed referring the matter to the court of public opinion, both locally and internationally.
47. The Report repeated my entreaty, made many times before, that all claims and complaints as between me, LASA, the judiciary, the JSC, and the Legal Practice Council (‘LPC’) be conciliated to a final and global resolution both in my own and especially in the national interest.
48. This is because I’ve multiple pending and intended future litigations against both LASA and the JSC which I yearn to drop and put behind me, so as to move on with my life after fifteen years of bitter struggle trying to obtain simple justice in my own case, during which I’ve faced barrage after barrage of retaliatory fire in reprisal, mentioned below, and I’m sick of it all.
49. But the extreme strain and hardship that I and those closest to me have endured as a result of the colossal judicial and other corruption I’ve run into, and the destruction of my legal career (see below), have only steeled my absolute and implacable determination to obtain redress.
50. For complaining in my pleadings in the Labour- and Labour Appeal Courts of Mlambo JP’s crimes and other acts of corruption committed as Chairperson of LASA’s Board, and for duly reporting this to the JCC, LASA is trying to get me disbarred as an advocate, undoubtedly at Mlambo JP’s original instance.
51. My hard-earned professional reputation has already been ruined by the Society of Advocates of KwaZulu-Natal’s gross mishandling of LASA’s professional misconduct complaint against me – as recounted in my response to the LPC’s invitation to respond to the complaint a second time, after the LPC inherited it from the said Society unresolved. All papers in the matter are accessible illegal-aid.co.za/LPC.
52. These papers include the LPC’s latest letter to me on 8 November 2024 announcing its decision to come after me on the basis that ‘there is prima facie evidence that you are guilty of misconduct which warrants misconduct proceedings to be instituted against you. The Committee has referred the matter to a Disciplinary Committee for adjudication.’ See ‘A29’.
53. LASA has already succeeded in getting me blacklisted from any acting appointments as a contract magistrate, having got me summarily sacked from my former post by alleging to the Magistrates Commission that I was unfit for such office (because I’d complained of Mlambo JP’s corruption) – without any notice of the complaint, let alone an opportunity to respond to it. I deal with this in my said second response delivered to the LPC, accessible at the just-said website.
54. I should add that to try shutting me down as complainant about the serious corruption and breakdown of corporate governance at LASA during Mlambo JP’s tenure as Board Chairperson, LASA applied to the High Court at Pietermaritzburg to have me (a) banned as a vexatious litigant, so as to block my further access to our courts to enforce my rights, and (b) interdicted from obtaining any more of its records, including those it had pledged to turn over in a settlement agreement signed in court after capitulating to my litigation for them, but then failed to do, and then positively refused to do in response to my subsequent application to compel compliance with that agreement. The trial judge quickly dismissed LASA’s vexatious, baseless case without even calling on me to argue.
55. Like Justices Nkabinde and Makgoka did later on regarding precisely the same issues before the JCC, centring on LASA’s bogus financial insufficiency defence for aborting my recruitment, the trial judge recognised LASA’s fraud on the Labour Court, proved with supporting documents in my very extensive, multi-volume answering affidavit opposing LASA’s vexatious case.
56. Indeed, taxing LASA’s counsel during his miserable argument, the trial judge observed on the record: ‘All trial lawyers know that cases are won by perjury sometimes.’ All papers in the application are accessible at illegal aid.co.za/VPA.
57. By contrast, Waglay JP never even considered these issues raised in my petition, let alone grasped them, as the said trial judge in LASA’s vexatious case and Justices Nkabinde and Makgoka all did very correctly, because he immediately threw my petition out without reading it, moved to do so by the criminal ‘memorandum’ that I later discovered in the appeal court file.
58. In addition, there are several major unresolved litigation cost issues, including as between the JSC and me, which are too dense and insufficiently relevant to warrant the ink and space required to explain here.
59. Waglay JP’s judicial corruption is canvassed extensively in paragraphs 9, 19–25, 32, 40–44, 66–68, 112–116, 133–134, and 141 of the Report.
60. The Report dealt also with the JCC’s failure to have decided my appeal (subsequently upheld) against Zondi JA’s reprehensibly cursory dismissal of my eight complaints about Mlambo JP’s repeated, documented, criminal lies to Parliament and to the Durban Labour Court; his impeachable lies to the Justice Minister; and his complicity in LASA’s suppression of duly requested records on four documented occasions.
61. The SSA DG ignored the Report, so in July 2023 I copied it to the Minister in the Presidency for State Security. See ‘A30’, and proof of delivery ‘A31’. When she ignored it too, I copied it directly to the Office of the Presidency the following month. Which ignored it also. See ‘A32’ and ‘A33’.
62. On 27 November 2023, after independently obtaining a copy of the Report from a third party unknown to me, and evidently appalled by its contents, United Democratic Movement leader Hon Bantu Holomisa MP wrote to the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, seeking an inquiry into the unresolved judicial corruption detailed therein. (He initially missed the information in the Report’s first and last page footers indicating that I’d prepared it.) His letter, which I found on the internet, is ‘A34’.
63. Without investigating and assessing for herself the veracity and validity of my complaints against Waglay JP and Mlambo JP summarised in the Report – to which complaints, the judges’ responses, and my comments on them in PDF, I’d provided hyperlinks in the Report for easy access – and despite (a) the word ‘DRAFT’ in upper case prominently watermarked diagonally across all its pages, and (b) her quite correct understanding noted in her text message to me before going to print that ‘the footnote on the last page appears to confirm that it was written by you’ (see ‘A35’), News24 journalist Karyn Maughan claimed in the newspapers two days later that the Report was a ‘fake’ in which I’d made ‘false “judicial corruption” claims’. See ‘A36’.
64. Responding a few days later at the Judges Conference to media enquiries about the Report, then-Chief Justice Zondo massively amplified the false narrative fabricated by this useless journalist by lending his supreme judicial authority to it.
65. Putting his arm around Mlambo JP’s shoulder, so to say, and closing professional ranks with this utterly corrupt judge, Zondo CJ reflexively defensively dismissed and condemned my extraordinarily serious judicial misconduct complaints, also without having bothered to assess their veracity and validity upon any evaluation of the evidence I’d provided, and cast me as a leprous reprobate from whom the judiciary and the country needed protection. The newspapers uncritically echoed: ‘Zondo, Mlambo dismantle fake judicial corruption accusations, urge public to “protect judges”’. See ‘A37’. And again, referring to the Report, ‘Raymond Zondo shoots down accusations of captured judiciary’. See ‘A38’.
66. Fortunately unswayed by the extreme prejudice against me and my complaints in favour of Mlambo JP that Zondo CJ had so incredibly irresponsibly, improperly, indeed unlawfully fanned (à la the charge that got Hlophe JP impeached and removed), even as my complaints were still pending decision by the JCC, Justices Nkabinde and Makgoka duly found on 19 February 2024 a couple of months later that I’d indeed made a facially answerable case against Mlambo JP on the documentary and other evidence I’d presented in support of my four of most serious criminal and other charges, and recommended that the President convene a Judicial Conduct Tribunal to try them. Material excerpts of their decision marked up for relevance are ‘A39’. The full decision is accessible at: corrupt judges.co.za/JCC_Appeal_Committee_Adv_Brink_v_Mlambo_JP_19_Feb_2024.pdf.
67. How the JSC thereafter grotesquely irregularly, prejudicially and unlawfully disposed of the matter, inter alia by deliberately violating the audi alteram partem rule – thereby exposing the proceedings to judicial review (coming up) and setting aside by the High Court (inevitable), as Zondo CJ himself repeatedly warned his fellow commissioners during the virtual conference to discuss the case – and by malevolently defaming me variously as a racist and an extortionist to poison the conference and bias the other commissioners against me, thereby thumbing the scale in Mlambo JP’s favour, is noted at corrupt judges.co.za, where the transcript of the JSC’s shambolic conference is posted.

68. Despite:
• the delivery of my Complaint against Waglay JP way back in July 2017, and the JSC’s acknowledgment of it a few weeks later;
• the copies of my Complaint that I thrice provided the JSC in June 2018, February 2019, and February 2020 at its then-Secretaries’ repeated requests;
• my several written appeals to the then Chief Justice and Chairperson of the JSC; to the then-Deputy Chief Justice and Chairperson of the JCC; and to the then- Secretary of the JSC that my Complaint be decided after so many years’ of mounting delay;
• my application to the High Court to compel the JSC’s response to my illegally and unconstitutionally ignored PAIA request, inter alia, for the record of the allocation of my Complaint for decision, identifying the judge in question – to which application the JSC substantially capitulated in its answering papers;
• my specimen draft intelligence report both on judicial corruption in South Africa and the JSC’s failure to resolve my complaints about it, despite my repeated provision of replacement copies and my multiple written appeals for action, which Report I’d submitted to the SSA DG, then to the responsible Minister, and then to the President;
• the clear signal from the grant of my appeal in the Mlambo JP case by Justices Nkabinde and Makgoka as regards my criminal and other capital complaints against him that my Complaint against Waglay JP was likely also to be extraordinarily serious and well founded on the documentary and other evidence adduced against him –
my Complaint against Waglay JP remains undecided all these years later.
69. This very long delay is manifestly unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional, and it’s frustrating the very object of Chapter 2 of the JSC Act, namely to provide for ‘OVERSIGHT OVER JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS’.
70. Besides this, the JCC’s inaction is prejudicing me personally, and on several scores.
71. The heading of my Complaint, namely ‘First Complaint’ – like the heading of the first of my eight complaints against Mlambo JP – unambiguously implied that I intended filing at least one more complaint against Waglay JP; and indeed, I intended making a second one against him for fraudulently pretending that Denis Davis and Roland Sutherland JJA had sat with him to discuss, consider and decide my petition for leave to appeal the dismissal of my labour case, and that they’d unanimously concurred that it was unmerited.
72. In truth and in fact, I found that he’d corruptly dismissed my petition on his own, alone.
73. Court records that I obtained during my thorough investigation of the irregular circumstances in which my petition had been prematurely dismissed established incontrovertibly that, contrary to Waglay JP’s fraudulent dissimulation to me about this, he and the said two other appeal judges named in the dismissal order were all presiding in distant courts in distant cities on the day the order falsely alleged they deliberated and decided to reject my petition together.
74. Supported by the said court records categorically exposing and proving this, I detailed it all in an application to the High Court at Pietermaritzburg for unrelated relief against LASA. The papers are accessible at corrupt judges.co.za/Pillay_J. (During LASA’s counsel’s argument of its above-mentioned vexatious application against me, the judge mentioned that he’d drawn the case file at his own initiative and studied the papers. He was evidently impressed and perturbed by the documented facts of the case I’d made, because he vehemently rebuked LASA, via its counsel, for its iniquity in wrongly seeking and taking a punitive costs order against me in that case, which had been dismissed not on the merits, never considered, but on account only of an unanticipated technical hitch regarding formal service, even though LASA had filed an answering affidavit responding to my case made in my application papers which I’d emailed to it well before the hearing. Point is, the judge recognised the horror of my case on the documented facts set out in my founding affidavit, and its extreme implications for the integrity of our judiciary.)
75. In view of the JCC’s failure to decide my Complaint, after so many appeals for action I’d made to the Chief Justice and JSC Chairperson, to the Deputy Chief Justice and JCC Chairperson, and to the JSC Secretary, and my repeated provision of duplicate copies of the papers, and the look of it that the JSC was determined to run cover for Waglay JP by just sitting on the Complaint about his impeachable judicial corruption and leaving it undecided year after year – in other words that the JSC was itself corrupt – I was put off drawing and filing this second intended criminal and impeachable complaint against Waglay JP, because I understood that the JCC would have given it no more attention than my first Complaint, which is to say zero, and that drawing and filing it would have been a total waste of my time, as before.
76. It would have been as predictably futile as going to a corrupt police station headed by a corrupt station commander to make a corruption complaint about a corrupt police officer. This was the state of the JSC before you took over.
77. Indeed, the JSC’s unbelievably asinine and shamelessly dishonest claim on 6 May 2024 that ‘there is no prima facie evidence to substantiate the allegations’ made in my four most serious criminal and other capital complaints against Mlambo JP – which Justices Nkabinde and Makgoka had contrariwise found well-made and answerable before a Judicial Conduct Tribunal in their comprehensive 42-page review and analysis of the documentary and other ‘prima facie evidence’ that I’d indeed adduced (‘A39’) – only fortified my conclusion that the JSC led by Zondo CJ was itself hopelessly corrupt and determined to cover for corrupt judges in our country. The JSC’s said foolish and meretricious claim to me, and its similar media statement about it, are accessible at corrupt-judges.co.za.
78. There are several telling indications that the JSC members, to whom the Secretary made available the 811–page, indexed and paginated bundle of case documents in PDF via a hyperlink before the conference, didn’t study it all before the the discussion of the case; but this is a matter for my intended review application, as is the majority’s decision, 9 3, to deliberately disregard the audi alteram partem rule, in the teeth of Zondo CJ’s repeated warnings against committing this obviously reviewable irregularity, by denying me the opportunity to reply to Mlambo JP’s 223 pages of new evidence, new documents, and fresh slander of me, grossly irregularly and unlawfully woven into what ought to have been only his submissions on Justices Nkabinde and Makgoka’s recommendation against him following their consideration of the evidence presented in my four most serious criminal and other capital complaints, in his responses, and in my comments on it.
79. Of course, all this sickening illegality by the JSC, as well as some of its members’ repeated wanton defamation of me during its conference, transpired before you succeeded Zondo CJ as Chief Justice and Chairperson of the JSC later in the year.
80. To return to the personal prejudice I’m suffering due to the JCC’s failure to decide my Complaint: After Waglay JP corruptly tossed my petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of my labour case, I made several PAIA requests for LASA records, confidently anticipating – correctly it turned out – that they’d contradict, expose, and refute the many blatant lies that then LASA National Operations Executive Brian Nair told the judge during the trial; and I had to sue repeatedly to compel LASA to turn these duly requested records over to me. Ultimately, moments before the argument of my first five court applications set down together, LASA conceded them in the courtroom, and a couple of months later delivered many of the records pledged to me in its surrender treaty signed there.
81. My relentless pursuit of these records finally revealed to me the stunning, quite unexpected truth as to why my recruitment to LASA’s top legal professional post in KwaZulu-Natal had been silently aborted after I’d been shortlisted and interviewed and then duly selected and recommended for it – aborted without authority, off the record, contrary to the express wishes of the Justice Ministry and Justice Portfolio Committee as regards the filling of such critical vacant posts, and under cover of very different contradictory excuses, as Justices Nkabinde and Makgoka noted very correctly in their decision upholding my appeal in the Mlambo JP case (‘A39’).
82. The selection panel’s full, uncensored recommendation report that I finally forced out of LASA by suing for it, and by proceeding physically all the way to court for it, revealed the real reason I wasn’t appointed to the post. Rather than unfair discrimination against me in LASA’s national office, as I’d incorrectly surmised and pleaded in the Labour Court on the then-available evidence, it turned out to be just everyday jobs-for-pals recruitment corruption in favour of my rival applicant for the post, a former repeatedly appointed acting judge of the Labour Court. (The plan to slip him into the post instead of me – even though he didn’t meet the qualifying criteria, and had accordingly been rejected by the selection panel and eliminated from further consideration as a candidate – was stymied by my unrelenting pursuit of my appointment, after LASA’s Legal Resources Executive inadvertently let slip to me several silent months after my interview that I was indeed the candidate who’d been selected and recommended for the post.)
83. To conceal from me this critically relevant, pivotal information about my rival candidate contained in the selection panel’s recommendation report before the trial of my labour case (his connection with the Labour Court headed by Mlambo JP at the material time), LASA had redacted it by blacking it out with a Koki marker pen – in criminal contravention of section 90 of PAIA. This was the ethical character of the people running LASA at the time.
84. Financial records that I got out of LASA via PAIA after Waglay JP threw my petition out proved absolutely that its budgetary insufficiency alibi for aborting my appointment, pleaded by it in the Labour Court and successfully sold to the trial judge, had been totally false and a fraud on the court. (In his judgment, the trial judge didn’t mention that LASA’s single witness Nair had also advanced under oath a completely different, contradictory reason for the illegal backroom abortion of my appointment.)
85. These financial records showed contrariwise that the post for which I’d been selected and recommended had in truth and in fact been fully funded at the material time. (The labour judge believed and accepted Nair’s blatant lie about LASA not having the budget to fill the post for which I’d been picked, even as he noted in his judgment that he’d been a less than honest witness. See the judgment at illegal aid.co.za.)
86. Upon disgorging the said financial records unequivocally refuting LASA’s financial justification for not hiring me, and then discovering the amazing information about my rival applicant for the post in the now-complete and uncensored recommendation report for which I’d successfully sued, I resolved to return to the Labour Court with an application under common law for rescission of judgment on the grounds that subsequently discovered documents revealed that LASA’s successful financial insufficiency defence had been a fraud on the court, and that LASA had criminally concealed from me my true cause of action, namely simple recruitment corruption in the form of nepotism.
87. But obviously for as long as Waglay JP headed the very court that I was constrained to look to for justice, and my judicial corruption Complaint against him remained unresolved, I couldn’t safely and confidently proceed with my intended rescission application there.
88. And even though Waglay JP has now vacated the presidency of the Labour- and Labour Appeal Courts, I’m still unable to bring that application until the JCC has prosecuted his judicial corruption, detailed, documented and proved in my Complaint, and he’s been held to account for it, because if my rescission application is refused, it will go on petition before Acting Judge President Edwin Molahlehi, a member of LASA’s Board between 2006 and 2014, which is to say at all material times. Like other Board members, he was unresponsive and indifferent to the corruption at LASA pertinently brought to his and their attention.
89. Since it appears Goliath DJP is unwilling to decide my Complaint, I request that current JCC Chairperson Mbuyiseli Madlanga DCJ reassess it, determine it to be impeachable, and refer it to a Tribunal for decision under section 16 of the JSC Act, as the documented and incontestable facts clearly and obviously warrant.
90. I know of at least two precedents for the JCC Chairperson removing undecided complaints from judges to whom they’d been originally allocated and reassigning them.
91. On 29 March 2019, Betty Molemela JA (as she then was) was appointed to decide my eight complaints against Mlambo JP. See ‘A40’. But on 21 February 2021, Zondi JA was appointed to do so instead. See ‘A41’. (In its answering affidavit in my PAIA application mentioned above, the JSC told me that no record exists of the JCC Chairperson’s decision to substitute the one judge for the other. See ‘A21’, paragraph 20.)
92. And whereas the JSC told me Margaret Victor J was one of the three judges on the JCC Appeal Committee who considered my appeal against Zondi JA’s dismissal of my complaints – see ‘A42’ – in response to my PAIA request, and then necessary litigation for, ‘Any record identifying the JCC judges appointed to decide Brink’s appeal against Zondi JA’s dismissal of his eight complaints against Mlambo JP on 8 June 2021’ (item 24), her name appears nowhere in the Appeal Committee’s majority decision to uphold my appeal. Instead, Rammaka Mathopo J bobbed up mysteriously as the Appeal Committee’s new third member (see ‘A39’, first page), eagerly championing Mlambo JP in his minority decision and voting to dismiss my appeal with the objective of assisting Mlambo JP get away with his crimes and other impeachable misconduct. Mathopo J’s disgraceful decision is accessible at corrupt judges.co.za.
93. Incidentally, the JCC Appeal Committee, comprising Justices Nkabinde, Makgoka and Victor, met at the Constitutional Court on 10-11 December 2021 to debate and decide my appeal. Its information to me about this is ‘A43’. Since Mathopo J wasn’t there and didn’t participate in the conference, according to the JCC, his dissent in Mlambo JP’s favour, which Justices Nkabinde and Makgoka roundly criticised for its elementary errors, was ireegular, pro non scripto and legally irrelevant. But it practically worked just as intended to corrupt the JSC’s later consideration of the matter, inasmuch as the JSC bought wholesale Mathopo J’s false contention that I hadn’t set up an answerable case against Mlambo JP on my criminal and other capital charges against him, ludicrously contradicting Justices Nkabinde and Makgoka’s meticulously careful and extensive opposite finding.
94. I record that I’ve no objection to Madlanga DCJ dealing with this matter as Chairperson of the JCC, even though he represented LASA as senior counsel at the first pre-trial conference in my labour case against it, shortly before his selection and appointment to the Constitutional Court (about which he had an amicable chat during a break). This was well over a decade ago, and I’ve no reason to think he harbours any bias against me. Nor do I have any reason to doubt his integrity.
95. As to your own integrity, there’s no question in my mind that when, as then JCC Chairperson, before your appointment as Chief Justice and assumption of the office of JSC Chairperson ex lege, you assured the JSC at the conclusion of your JCC Report for the period January to December 2023 that, ‘The JCC is discharging its mandate to deal with complaints diligently and expeditiously and commits to continue doing so’, you were entirely unaware of my still undecided Complaint made way back in July 2017. See ‘A44’.
96. Your report duly includes the number of pending complaints against Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court judges, but strangely omits mention of my very long-outstanding Complaint against the erstwhile head of the Labour Appeal Court, Waglay JP.
97. In other words, although the first part of your quoted statement to the JSC was objectively false and gravely misled the JSC, I don’t doubt that you subjectively meant your report to be perfectly truthful.
98. But having been apprised by this letter of the JCC’s outrageous, illegal and unconstitutional delay in dealing with my supremely impeachable Complaint against Waglay JP, please advise me by 30 March 2025, two months hence, as to when I can expect the appointment of a Judicial Conduct Tribunal to try it under section 16 of the JSC Act. (If more time is needed to consider the matter, I’ll gladly agree to any reasonable request for an extension.)
99. You’ll surely agree with the Sunday Times editorial published by TimesLIVE online on 20 January 2025 that ‘Upholding integrity in the judiciary is crucial.’ See ‘A45’.
100. Now that you’ve succeeded Zondo CJ as JSC Chairperson and have your eye on the case I’m hoping my Complaint will be dealt with ‘diligently and expeditiously’ from here on, and that I won’t need to sue the JSC to compel this, more than seven-and-a-half years since I lodged it.
Yours sincerely

ADV ANTHONY BRINK
anthonybrink.sa@gmail.com | 083 779 4174