The Judicial Service Commission (JSC) has resolved to ask Chief Justice Mandisa Maya to appoint a tribunal to investigate a gross misconduct complaint against Pretoria High Court judge Portia Phahlane.

The JSC found reasonable grounds to suspect gross misconduct after it considered a report from the Judicial Conduct Committee at its meeting on 9 October. Members designated by the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces did not take part in that consideration.

The complaint

The complaint was lodged in February 2026 by Aubrey Ledwaba, then acting Gauteng judge president. The Judicial Conduct Committee ruled on 29 May on a request from Phahlane's lawyers to stay the complaint until her criminal case is finished. The lawyers cited her bail affidavit, in which she denied criminal conduct and said she intends to plead not guilty.

A tribunal is the next step in the judicial discipline process. It investigates the complaint and reports back; it does not decide a criminal case.

The criminal case

Hawks officers arrested Phahlane and three co-accused in November 2025 over allegations that she accepted about R2 million in cash and benefits to influence a court case about a leadership succession in the International Pentecostal Holiness Church. She was released on bail and placed on special leave.

Phahlane is presumed innocent, and none of the allegations has been tested at trial.

In June, the National Prosecuting Authority's Asset Forfeiture Unit obtained a preservation order from the Pretoria High Court over a property in Hartbeespoort valued at about R6 million that was bought in 2022. The NPA said the property was acquired partly with proceeds of unlawful activity. A preservation order is an interim measure and is not a finding of guilt.

What we do not yet know

  • When the Chief Justice will appoint the tribunal, and who will sit on it.
  • Whether the tribunal will wait for the criminal case to run its course.
  • When Phahlane's criminal trial is due to start.

The JSC's media statement on the decision is listed on the judiciary's website, but its full text was not available to us when this article was written.