Here’s a rewritten article based on the provided text, adhering to your requirements:
Judge Makhubele Found Guilty of Gross Misconduct by Tribunal
Johannesburg, South Africa – A tribunal has found Judge Makhubele guilty of gross misconduct in relation to allegations stemming from her dual roles as a judge and chairperson of the interim board of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa). The findings, detailed in a report, follow a complaint lodged by #UniteBehind, a coalition of non-profit organizations.
The complaint, divided into two parts, focused on two key areas. Part A concerned Makhubele’s acceptance of an appointment and provision of services as chairperson of Prasa’s interim board after her official appointment as a judge, effective January 1, 2018. Part B addressed her conduct during her tenure as Prasa chairperson, alleging she failed to act with honor, avoid the appearance of impropriety, and acted in a manner unbecoming of judicial office.
According to TimesLIVE, #UniteBehind alleged that during her time as Prasa chairperson, Makhubele facilitated the settlement of claims totaling approximately R59 million for companies within the Siyaya group, owned by Makhensa Mabunda. These settlements were reportedly on terms highly favorable to the Siyaya group. The report also notes that Mabunda has political connections to former Prasa CEO Lucky Montana, who has been recommended for prosecution by the state capture commission for tenders awarded during his tenure.#UniteBehind further alleged that Makhubele disregarded legal advice from Prasa’s own legal affairs division when approving these settlements. The tribunal’s decision highlighted that there was no record of the Prasa board passing a resolution to settle these specific claims.
Makhubele had denied the allegations, asserting that gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo had consented to her commencing her judicial duties in April 2018, rather than the official January 1, 2018 date. However,the tribunal found this version of events “most unlikely.”
The commission, in its report released on Friday, stated that the facts presented in the tribunal’s report “clearly support the conclusion that judge Makhubele is guilty of gross misconduct in respect of the allegations set out in Part A.” Moreover, the commission concluded that the evidence used to find Makhubele guilty under Part B “clearly established gross misconduct in the form of dishonesty.”
Before reaching its decision, the commission, which was constituted without Members of Parliament, solicited written representations from both Makhubele and #UniteBehind, both of which were submitted.
Crucial Details Not in the Original Article:
Specific Complaint Source: The complaint was filed by #UniteBehind, a coalition of movements comprising various non-profit organizations. Financial Value of claims: The settlements in question were worth approximately R59 million.
Key Individuals: Makhensa mabunda (owner of Siyaya group) and Lucky Montana (former Prasa CEO) are named in relation to the allegations.
Legal Advice Disregarded: The complaint specifically mentioned that the settlements went against legal advice from Prasa’s own legal affairs division.
Tribunal’s Finding on Board Resolution: The tribunal noted the absence of a board resolution authorizing the settlement of these claims.
Judge President’s alleged Consent: Makhubele claimed Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo consented to a delayed start to her judicial duties.
Tribunal’s Assessment of Makhubele’s Claim: The tribunal deemed Makhubele’s claim about judge President Mlambo’s consent “most unlikely.”
Nature of Misconduct: The tribunal found gross misconduct in both parts of the complaint, with Part B specifically identifying dishonesty.
* Commission’s Role: The commission reviewed written representations from both parties before issuing its report.
Note on Specificity: While the article mentions the financial value of the claims and the names of key individuals,further specific details such as the exact dates of the settlements,the names of the companies within the Siyaya group,or the specific nature of the legal advice that was disregarded would require access to the full tribunal report or further investigative journalism.
