R5,000 bribe allegation against Judge Makamu referred to Tribunal

A complaint against Gauteng High Court Judge Mudunwazi Samuel Makamu, alleging that he solicited and received a R5,000 payment from a litigant and sought to influence an appeal arising from an eviction judgment, has been found sufficiently serious to warrant a formal investigation by a Judicial Conduct Tribunal.

The complaint was lodged by Bouwe Wiersma, an attorney and businessman, with the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) of the Judicial Service Commission.

According to the findings contained in the judicial-conduct proceedings, Wiersma’s complaint relates to allegations of “grossly improper conduct” by Judge Makamu during and after eviction proceedings involving Wiersma.

The allegations have not been finally determined, and Judge Makamu has denied them.

The dispute arose from Wiersma’s involvement with the Heidelberg Heritage Museum. According to the complaint, Wiersma, through his close corporation, Heidelberg Beer Festival CC, undertook to revive the museum as a functioning community venue.

The municipality had previously approved, in principle, a 19-year lease of the property to the close corporation. Wiersma subsequently invested substantial sums in improvements to the property and took occupation.

No formal lease was ultimately signed.

The municipality later brought an urgent eviction application after Wiersma allegedly accumulated arrears exceeding R1.3 million, including municipal service charges. The matter came before Judge Makamu in July 2025.

The judge ultimately found that the eviction application was justified, including on the basis that Wiersma was unlawfully occupying the property without a valid lease.

It was events following that judgment that formed the basis of the most serious allegations in Wiersma’s complaint.

Alleged calls and legal recommendation

According to the complaint, two days after the judgment Wiersma received a telephone call from a person identifying himself as Judge Makamu.

Wiersma alleged that the caller described the judgment as an “injustice” and encouraged him to appeal.

The complaint further alleges that the caller offered to put Wiersma in contact with a legal adviser who could secure a successful appeal.

Wiersma allegedly subsequently received a WhatsApp message from a number which he believed belonged to Judge Makamu, containing the contact details of Ndlovu Attorneys, whom the judge allegedly recommended to handle the appeal.

According to the complaint, the judge’s secretary also contacted Wiersma and provided the attorneys’ details.

Wiersma allegedly later told the judge that the quoted legal fees were too high. He claims the judge then agreed that Wiersma could use his preferred advocate, identified as Advocate Hollander, to pursue the appeal.

The complaint further alleges that Judge Makamu gave assurances that the appeal would be heard and suggested that the outcome would be favourable.

Wiersma also alleged that Hollander sent him a WhatsApp message saying that he had received a call from Judge Makamu.

Alleged R5,000 payment

The most serious allegation concerns a payment of R5,000.

According to Wiersma’s complaint, Judge Makamu allegedly asked him to contribute towards the studies of the judge’s nephew, identified as G Makamu, who was studying at Rhodes University.

Wiersma further alleged that the judge told him that he had received money from the municipality, the opposing party in the eviction proceedings, in connection with granting the relief sought against him.

The complaint alleges that the judge then asked Wiersma to “even the scales”.

Wiersma said an amount was initially suggested and later reduced to R5,000.

According to the complaint, Wiersma agreed to pay the amount and transferred the money electronically to a bank account supplied to him in the name of “J Makamu”.

The complaint included proof of the payment.

The payment was reportedly made from an FNB account into a Capitec account in the sum of R5,000. The payment reference reportedly stated:

“SAVINGS/COUSIN/RHODE”

while the payer’s reference stated:

“advAppeal/hdbmuseum”.

Wiersma alleged that after the payment was made, Judge Makamu confirmed that the application for leave to appeal had been set down for hearing.

The application for leave to appeal was subsequently dismissed.

Judge denies allegations

Judge Makamu denied the allegations.

According to the judicial-conduct record, he denied communicating with Wiersma before or after the judgment.

The judge said he first became aware of the allegations after reading an article in The Citizen concerning corruption allegations involving an unnamed judge. He said senior colleagues subsequently informed him that he was allegedly the judge referred to in the article.

He denied soliciting R5,000, or any other amount, from Wiersma.

He also denied that the bank account into which the R5,000 was allegedly paid belonged to him.

The account details were subsequently provided by the parties following a request made during the investigation.

According to the judge’s response, the account belonged to a person identified as “Mr Makua”. Wiersma, however, conducted his own investigation and was allegedly informed by a local Capitec branch that the account holder was “Mr G Makuwa”.

JCC says allegations too serious to dismiss

The JCC considered the complaint under section 16 of the Judicial Service Commission Act.

In its assessment, the committee noted that there were “several troubling apparent inconsistencies, unconfirmed and implausible allegations” in Wiersma’s complaint and that some of his assertions departed in important respects from what had been established during the eviction proceedings.

Nevertheless, the JCC concluded that the allegations were too serious to be treated as a trivial or informal complaint.

In particular, the committee highlighted the allegations suggesting bribery or corrupt influence by Judge Makamu.

It concluded that a full and impartial investigation was necessary to establish the facts and determine the veracity of the allegations.

The complaint was consequently referred for an inquiry under section 17 of the Judicial Service Commission Act.

The judicial-conduct inquiry subsequently considered whether the allegations met the statutory threshold for an impeachable complaint.

The inquiry emphasised that the question at that stage was not whether the allegations had already been proven, but whether they would amount to prima facie gross misconduct if established.

The findings state that the allegations, if established, would “clearly sustain gross misconduct” and suggested, among other things, that the judge had allegedly solicited and received a bribe from a litigant whose case he had decided.

The allegations further suggested that the payment was allegedly connected to an attempt to manipulate an appeal process arising from the judge’s own decision.

The inquiry stressed that the allegations might ultimately not be established.

However, it found that the seriousness of the allegations meant that they could only properly be investigated by a Judicial Conduct Tribunal empowered to determine an impeachable complaint.

Rather, the judicial-conduct process determined that the allegations, if established, could amount to gross misconduct and therefore warranted investigation by the appropriate Tribunal.

For Right to Justice and other organisations concerned with judicial accountability, the proceedings underscore the importance of ensuring that allegations of corruption involving judicial officers are investigated independently, transparently and according to law.