{"id":9654,"date":"2025-11-01T12:20:11","date_gmt":"2025-11-01T10:20:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediaforjustice.net\/?p=9654"},"modified":"2025-11-01T12:20:11","modified_gmt":"2025-11-01T10:20:11","slug":"smearing-justice-marianne-thamms-crusade-against-advocate-muzi-sikhakhane","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thecounterhegemon.kre8tifley.com\/?p=9654","title":{"rendered":"Smearing Justice: Marianne Thamm\u2019s Crusade Against Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane vs What He Actually Said."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Gillian Schutte <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the past weeks, Daily Maverick journalist Marianne Thamm has churned out article after article on the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of Judge President Selby Mbenenge \u2013 all with one seemingly clear agenda: to influence public sentiment and, by extension, judicial perception. Her October 22 piece, titled \u201c#Get off your feminist, Western, culturally superior, subjective high horse, Mbenenge\u2019s lawyer tells tribunal,\u201d<\/a><\/em> was particularly detestable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thamm produced pure donor-smarminess, replete with her own inward smirk as she attempted to reduce Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane\u2019s fine closing arguments into the clunky one-liners of a one-woman show. She may be fooling her audience of white whingers and ageing hipsters, but she is not fooling Black and progressive non-Blacks in South Africa.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Written with her trademark blend of mockery and moral superiority, the piece parodied Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane SC\u2019s argument as chauvinist bluster. It reduced a sophisticated, jurisprudentially grounded defence to a crude culture-war skirmish \u2013 the African man versus feminist victim binary that white liberal journalism depends on for its moral relevance. What Thamm presented as courtroom colour was, in fact, a calculated exercise in narrative capture: a colonial script written for liberal consumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Manufacturing Consent through Derision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Thamm\u2019s framing, Sikhakhane\u2019s insistence on epistemic humility \u2013 his call for the tribunal to recognise cultural difference in interpreting interpersonal communication \u2013 became a punchline. She sneered at his philosophical depth, dismissing his critique of Eurocentrism as \u201cpatriarchal gaslighting.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the usual missionary reflex in new language: the refusal to accept that African thought systems, African relational codes, and African jurisprudence can exist on their own terms. Thamm\u2019s \u201cfeminist\u201d posture is, at its core, the familiar civilising mission \u2013 the colonial white woman rescuing the African woman from the African man. It is a trope as old as empire, and she deploys it with smug confidence, assuming her moral gaze is the ultimate vessel of truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The irony is confounding: the journalist who lectures against patriarchy reproduces the same chauvinistic hierarchy she claims to dismantle \u2013 with herself perched firmly atop it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Sikhakhane Actually Argued<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To read Thamm\u2019s piece, one would never know that Sikhakhane\u2019s submission was not an emotional diatribe but a meticulous legal argument. His reasoning was anchored in constitutional principles and case law, not cultural deflection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He began by acknowledging the seriousness of sexual harassment. He quoted MacGregor v Public Health & Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council<\/em>, affirming that such conduct is \u201chumiliating and demeaning.\u201d But he warned that moral panic must not replace legal proof.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sikhakhane quoted Justice Sisi Khampepe:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSexual harassment is the most heinous misconduct that plagues a workplace. Although prohibited under the labour laws of this country, it persists. Its persistence and prevalence pose a barrier to the achievement of substantive equality in the workplace and is inimical to the constitutional dream of a society founded on the values of human dignity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He then reminded the tribunal that the Constitution\u2019s purpose is to protect all rights \u2013 including the right to fairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou wonder why I\u2019m quoting this because to the naked eye it sounds like I\u2019m arguing against myself. I\u2019m not. I\u2019m raising this because this is a clarion call to everybody involved in an inquiry about sexual harassment. It is a clarion call to the complainant and a clarion call to the potential respondents in cases of this nature. But it\u2019s a double-edged sword. The seriousness with which we are being warned means determining questions of sexual harassment must be done in a way that is careful, that is unbiased, that concentrates on the facts so that in future you do not have a broad sweep where any complaint is entertained, even if it undermines the legitimacy of genuine complaints.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thamm ignored this entirely, preferring to paint him as an apologist for misogyny rather than a defender of due process. His statement was not a denial of women\u2019s experiences \u2013 it was a defence of justice itself from ideological contamination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sikhakhane\u2019s Five-Point Structure of Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Definition and Parameters of the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sikhakhane begins by clarifying the scope of his submission. He wants the tribunal to understand what the case is and what it is not. This is not a referendum on morality or gender politics, but a factual and legal inquiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He notes that public and media commentary have clouded this distinction:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere have been a lot of questions raised, some of them misplaced, which have tended to dominate the condemnation of the respondent and these proceedings \u2013 and from the large community of moral high horse riders.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To restore legal clarity, he commits to dealing first with the precise definition of sexual harassment. He argues that South African law provides an established definition, and that a \u201cone-size-fits-all\u201d approach \u2013 determined by feeling or ideology \u2013 is antithetical to justice. The tribunal, he says, must resist the temptation to generalise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. The Burden of Proof and the Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his second point, Sikhakhane sets out the principle that guides all jurisprudence: he who alleges must prove.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

He explains that the complainant\u2019s case is heavy on sentiment and moral outrage, but light on evidence. The flirtation between the parties, he says, may have been unwise but is not forbidden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cContrary to the broad sweeping claims and moral outrage about flirting by a judge, there is absolutely not an iota of evidence showing that that flirting, which is not impermissible, constitutes sexual harassment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He makes it clear that neither the public\u2019s disapproval of flirting nor the complainant\u2019s post-hoc discomfort can transform consensual interaction into misconduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. The Centrality of the Word \u201cUnwelcome\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The third strand of Sikhakhane\u2019s submission focuses on statutory interpretation. He isolates the term \u201cunwelcome\u201d<\/em> \u2013 a word he notes appears eight times in the Employment Equity Act and related Codes of Good Practice \u2013 as the legal threshold for harassment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He points out that the complainant\u2019s counsel abandoned the Equality Act to rely on the Employment Equity Act, not realising that the latter gives even greater weight to unwelcomeness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is actually in the Employment Equity Act that the word unwelcome<\/em> is a factor. It is mentioned eight times \u2013 seven times in the specific sections relied on and once in the broad definition.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This detail matters, he says, because the complainant\u2019s own messages never express rejection. To criminalise such communication would be to erase the principle that consent and reciprocity are determinative in law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. The Pattern of Concealment in the Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fourth point turns to the complainant\u2019s selective presentation of the WhatsApp exchanges. Sikhakhane concedes that no one expects a complainant to quote every message, but insists that what was chosen and what was omitted reveal intention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe pattern of selecting particular things that do not really place Judge Mbenenge in a positive light is itself a problem.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He calls this pattern a form of \u201cdeliberate concealment\u201d designed to distort tone and context. What remains, he argues, is a \u201ccreative reconstruction of the conversation\u201d \u2013 a reshaped narrative built to imply rebuffs where none exist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this section he also pre-empts the opposing counsel\u2019s claim that Mengo repeatedly rebuffed the judge\u2019s advances. He refers the tribunal to pages 43 \u2013 44 of his heads of argument, showing that those supposed rebuffs are textual inventions \u2013 interpretive fictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. The \u201cSensual, Sexual and Salacious\u201d Chats<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his fifth topic, Sikhakhane turns to the content of the WhatsApp messages between the complainant and the respondent. He notes that the complainant\u2019s counsel objected to the term \u201csalacious\u201d<\/em>, while his own client used the word \u201csensual.\u201d<\/em> Sikhakhane bridges the terms in order to avoid pedantic debate and to keep focus on the substance:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI will use three of them \u2013 sexual, sensual and salacious \u2013 to describe the chats themselves.\u201d
He then cites the relevant dates \u2013 8 June, 10 June, 18 June, 20 June, 21 June, 23 June, and 26 June 2021 \u2013 as the key points of exchange. The chats, he notes, were mutual and expressive, part of a reciprocal dialogue that was later reframed as coercive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Logical Architecture of the Submission<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From this framework, the elegance of Sikhakhane\u2019s defence is clear. He defines the issue lawfully, tests evidence against the definition, isolates \u201cunwelcome\u201d as the hinge of the case, exposes selective omissions, and disproves factual allegations with precision. Each point anticipates and neutralises the complainant\u2019s narrative while warning the tribunal against ideological contagion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Three Legs of the Complaint<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

He then turns to the factual structure of the complaint \u2013 the \u201cthree legs\u201d \u2013 and dismantles each with precision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The WhatsApp Messages:<\/strong> The complainant\u2019s selective disclosure created a false picture of harassment. Missing were messages that showed reciprocity and warmth. \u201cFlirting is not frowned upon,\u201d he said. \u201cEveryone who condemns it does it. We don\u2019t like it when it comes out in public, but it\u2019s not frowned upon in society.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Alleged Photo:<\/strong> There was no digital or forensic evidence of the so-called \u201ccrude picture.\u201d Sikhakhane called it \u201ca painful public lie\u201d unsupported by metadata, timestamps, or chain of custody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Exposure Incident:<\/strong> The timeline did not match. Two dates were given, no witnesses, no footage. \u201cWhat we are left with,\u201d he said, \u201cis guessing what could have been. You can never decide a case of this nature, to impeach anyone, when those pillars are absent.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His conclusion was concise: \u201cIf you are called upon to decide that flirting is dishonourable, well, we plead guilty \u2013 because this was flirting \u2013 but you are not called upon to make that finding.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Precedent Trap<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sikhakhane understood that this tribunal is being positioned as a precedent-setting case. It is not simply about Judge Mbenenge but about shaping future adjudication of sexual misconduct \u2013 particularly cases involving men of influence or dissenting worldview.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the start, the case was framed as historic \u2013 \u201cthe first sexual harassment complaint against a sitting judge.\u201d This framing did not just inform; it instructed. It told the tribunal that it carried the burden of moral example. Such pressure turns judicial process into social engineering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sikhakhane\u2019s caution was clear: law must not be tempted to satisfy ideology. A tribunal that convicts on speculation to appease moral pressure ceases to be a tribunal of law. It becomes a platform for moral posturing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This attempt to impose Western feminist orthodoxy on South African jurisprudence risks transforming African legal reasoning into an echo of colonial contempt \u2013 one that assumes African masculinity is inherently suspect and African womanhood permanently wounded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defending the Integrity of Law<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sikhakhane reminded the tribunal that law cannot be bent by moral outrage. It must remain an instrument of reason. \u201cThe idea that law is an elastic that we must pull to where we want,\u201d he warned, \u201cis itself a plague in society. We must be strict about defining things.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His argument was not conservative or patriarchal; it was constitutional. He defended the judiciary from becoming a servant of political mood. He knows that once emotion replaces evidence, justice becomes entertainment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The liberal media\u2019s moral outrage demands constant spectacle. Sikhakhane\u2019s voice interrupted that rhythm. He insisted that truth must not be decided in the court of public opinion. His submission was a shield for judicial independence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Context, Culture, and the Western Gaze<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another line that Thamm plucked out of context to belittle the Sikhakhane was his now-famous \u201cflowers and Sandton restaurant\u201d analogy. \u201cIt is difficult to analyse conversations of people from different backgrounds. It’s much more difficult if you come from Western notions of conversation because you are analysing something about which you end up being superior, that you think it represents barbarism \u2026 you ask and why didn’t you buy her flowers? Why didn’t you take her out? Inherent in that analysis is absolute prejudice and condescension about how different people approach this.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He added: \u201cAnd I’m not here to argue that the JP (Mbenenge) courts elegantly. I’ve already stated that, I don’t know, but different people can approach it differently. And so to conflate what you think is an inelegant way of asking one out, with harassment, which is persistent and unwanted, does not find favour in the evidence that was presented before you.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chair of the Tribunal, retired judge Bernard Ngoepe, quipped in response to this view. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSome say take her to a restaurant in Sandton? In Sekhukhune where do we get to a restaurant of that kind? \u201d referring to  Polokwane where he grew up in the small village of Ga-Matlala. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He was illustrating how culture and geography shape perception \u2013 that affection expressed in isiXhosa idiom or rural humour may be misread through urban moral filters. To interpret every exchange through Sandton\u2019s lens is to pathologise African expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet Thamm and her colleagues both pathologised and trivialised the analogy to delegitimise both his and Sikhakhane’s intellect and refer to them as out-of-touch \u2018old men\u2019.  It was an act of cultural erasure disguised as white liberal feminist wit. When he spoke of difference, he was asking for humility in judgement \u2013 the recognition that law must understand before it condemns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Superiority Conscience<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most revealing part of Sikhakhane\u2019s closing was his rebuke to those who approach the law from a pedestal of moral selfness. \u201cIt is a human temptation,\u201d he said, \u201cto assume that your own morality is universal \u2013 and it is worse when applied from a position of someone who believes they are civilising the other who is deemed barbaric.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was a direct challenge to the colonial conscience that still governs much of South African media and jurisprudence. Thamm\u2019s article proved his point in real time: she exemplified the very superiority conscience he warned against.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sikhakhane\u2019s argument was never about excusing behaviour; it was about protecting the philosophical foundations of justice from moral populism. He asked for law to be applied within its own boundaries, for culture to be interpreted with humility, and for evidence to remain the final arbiter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In doing so, he placed the tribunal before a mirror: would it judge according to proof, or would it submit to the moral hysteria whipped up in the press?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Real Issue<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Mbenenge Tribunal has moved beyond the confines of procedure. It has become a site of struggle between two opposing worldviews: one grounded in fairness, evidence, and cultural awareness; the other shaped by a media elite intent on converting moral fervour into judgement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marianne Thamm\u2019s reporting reflects this second current. Her articles operate within a moral economy that mirrors the civilising instincts of empire. Behind the rhetoric of justice lies a persistent colonial reflex \u2013 the belief that African reason and expression must be translated through a Western moral lens. The result is not journalism but preservation of dominance, where control over narrative becomes a substitute for inquiry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sikhakhane\u2019s intervention cut through that distortion with the discipline of law. In defending a judge, he reasserted the primacy of reason over ideology, reminding the tribunal that justice cannot exist without proof. His approach reflected a deeper philosophical resistance \u2013 a refusal to let Western epistemology dictate the meaning of African moral and cultural life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thamm and her colleagues, in contrast, have relegated themselves to relics of an older imperial order. Their allegiance to neoliberalism has transformed them into agents of a system that silences independent thought while presenting itself as progress. Their work serves the same global structure that justifies dispossession elsewhere \u2013 one that protects power and calls it morality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neoliberalism, like Zionism, functions through moral exceptionalism. Both advance domination under the language of virtue and both insist on the erasure of alternative truths. Each claims to act for civilisation while enforcing hierarchy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sikhakhane\u2019s submission challenged that system at its root. It restored intellectual coherence to a discourse captured by sentiment, insisting that African jurisprudence speaks in its own register and requires no Western translation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When sentiment replaces evidence and media power assumes the role of conscience, truth itself becomes endangered. In this tribunal, Muzi Sikhakhane stood for the integrity of law. In doing so, he made history. Those who sought to defame him will be remembered instead for protecting the last illusions of empire.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Watch the closing arguments here: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/live\/hfDT3DlEPHU<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Gillian Schutte exposes how Daily Maverick\u2019s Marianne Thamm distorted Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane SC\u2019s closing argument at the Mbenenge Tribunal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9657,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"postBodyCss":"","postBodyMargin":[],"postBodyPadding":[],"postBodyBackground":{"backgroundType":"classic","gradient":""},"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,126,49],"tags":[105,204,205,85,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,75,215,77,216,167,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225],"class_list":["post-9654","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-african-news","category-jurisprudence","category-world-news","tag-advocate-muzi-sikhakhane","tag-advocate-rajab-budlender","tag-advocate-salome-scheepers","tag-andiswa-mengo","tag-character-assassination","tag-colonial-mentality","tag-cultural-epistemology","tag-daily-maverick","tag-epistemic-violence","tag-eurocentric-justice","tag-feminist-hypocrisy","tag-isixhosa-courtship-norms","tag-judge-president-selby-mbenenge","tag-judicial-conduct-tribunal","tag-judicial-integrity","tag-lisa-vetten","tag-marianne-thamm","tag-media-bias","tag-media-propaganda","tag-muzi-sikhakhane-defence","tag-neoliberal-media","tag-press-ethics","tag-racial-double-standards","tag-sanef","tag-south-african-judiciary","tag-south-african-law","tag-trial-by-media"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecounterhegemon.kre8tifley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9654","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecounterhegemon.kre8tifley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecounterhegemon.kre8tifley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecounterhegemon.kre8tifley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecounterhegemon.kre8tifley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thecounterhegemon.kre8tifley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9654\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecounterhegemon.kre8tifley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/9657"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecounterhegemon.kre8tifley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecounterhegemon.kre8tifley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecounterhegemon.kre8tifley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}