RACISM CHARGE: Judge Hartle’s future hangs in balance over alleged k-word and insults to clerk

Eastern Cape high court Judge Belinda Hartle is fighting to keep her job after being accused of calling a court employee the k-word, a case that could see her removed from the Bench if she is found guilty of gross misconduct and the process for her removal (impeachment) is followed.

Hartle is accused of using racist and insulting language towards high court registrar clerk Thozamile Semekazi in May 2025 after being frustrated by delays in the delivery of court files.

Semekazi, who has worked as a court clerk for more than 20 years, said in his complaint that he went to Hartle’s secretary’s office on the afternoon of 15 May 2025 to hand over files needed for case management.

He claimed that Hartle became upset when she saw the number of files which had been late and began swearing at him, including calling him the k-word, in front of her secretary, Shakira Frost.

Hours after the exchange, she apologised in a WhatsApp message, the tribunal heard. 

It did not end there. The next day, she left a “peace offering” on his desk, agreeing that her conduct had been unprofessional, something which Semekazi considered to be a bribe. 

The allegations are now under investigation by the Judicial Conduct Tribunal, chaired by retired Supreme Court of Appeal Justice Boissie Mbha, which began hearing evidence on Monday to determine whether Hartle’s behaviour amounted to gross misconduct.

On Tuesday, Semekazi was under cross-examination by advocate Jan Heunis SC, who is representing Hartle, with much of the questioning focusing on what happened during the confrontation and the WhatsApp message in which the judge had later apologised for using a swear word. 

Heunis spent a considerable amount of time trying to understand why Semekazi had not mentioned the k-word when he relayed the incident to colleagues, and during an interaction with Hartle herself. Responding to this, Semekazi said he had been angry and emotional at the time. 

WhatsApp apology 

Heunis referred Semekazi to a statement from Hartle’s secretary, which disputed his version of the confrontation and maintained that the judge had not directed any insulting language towards him.

“Judge Hartle did not directly speak with Mr Semekazi, and certainly did not swear at him or use any other profanities towards him,” the statement read.

“That is a lie,” Semekazi responded, questioning why Hartle would have sent him a WhatsApp message apologising for using a swear word if her remarks had not been directed at him.

He maintained that Hartle had been angry during their interaction and had humiliated him in front of her secretary, adding that although he had confronted her about the way she was speaking to him, she had walked away without apologising.

“During the time she was talking, she was angry, insulting me” 

The WhatsApp message Hartle later sent to Semekazi read: “Hello, Mr Simekazi. I realised that I used a swear word in giving meaning to my frustration just now. But it was not intentional and certainly not directed at you personally. I apologise if it offended you. Kind regards Belinda Hartle.” 

Responding to the message, Semekazi said: “It is the first time in my 23 years of working in this department that I have been sworn to and from someone in your position. You degraded me in front of your secretary and belittled me which is so humiliating…”

Semekazi also told the tribunal that he had previously obtained a protection order against Hartle’s secretary, whom he accused of ill-treating him after he had been discharged from hospital.

According to Judges Matter, Hartle has acknowledged using a swear word during the incident, but maintains that it was not directed at Semekazi, accusing him of misrepresenting what happened between them.

“In Judge Hartle’s response to the complaint, she sets out a similar timeline of events to that put forward by Mr Semekazi, with the key difference being that she states she used only one swear word, and that it was not directed at Mr Semekazi. She accuses him of grossly misrepresenting the interaction between them,” Judges Matter said.

The organisation said Hartle had denied using a racist word, but had not explained which swear word she used, according to the Judicial Conduct Committee’s ruling. 

Court clerk breaks down in cross-examination

Still under cross-examination, Heunis questioned Semekazi about his medical and mental health history, focusing on 15 applications for incapacity leave, 12 of which had been rejected. Some of the applications had not been completed properly, while one was eventually approved because of a leg injury.

The tribunal also heard that Semekazi had suffered from major depression following the alleged racist incident, which he said had affected both his working life and personal relationships.

The questioning became emotional when Heunis began asking about his personal circumstances, prompting Semekazi to break down in tears as he struggled to explain why such private matters were being raised during the hearing.

“I did not know that these proceedings would come to this extent, where I am required to disclose problems and my divorce issues,” he said.

His emotional response prompted Mbha to intervene and put an end to that line of questioning, before adjourning the proceedings to give Semekazi time to compose himself.

Tribunal chair warns against ‘fishing exercise’

The cross-examination took another turn when Heunis questioned Semekazi about allegations that he had previously wanted to provide journalists with information about senior figures at the high court, something the witness repeatedly denied knowing anything about.

“I do not know anything about that,” Semekazi responded when Heunis asked whether he might have forgotten about the alleged conversation.

The repeated questioning prompted Mbha to intervene and ask whether Heunis had information to support the allegations, including details of a telephone call that Semekazi had allegedly made.

“This is repetitive. Is it possible that you can point the witness to the information you have?” Mbha asked.

Heunis indicated that the information might be available and that he would obtain it, but Mbha expressed concern about the direction of the questioning and reminded the advocate of the importance of the proceedings.

“I am worried if this is the way we are going to go. I would really like to see positive arguments being put to a witness. It tends to look like, I don’t want to use the word a fishing exercise, but this is a very important case. We want to strictly hear evidence,” he said.

“If at all you don’t have that information, then why put that version to the witness?”

Later in the day, the tribunal heard that a recording relating to the allegations had since been produced and was expected to be played on Wednesday after the evidence leader had listened to it.

Hartle’s judicial career at stake

The outcome of the tribunal could have serious consequences for Hartle’s judicial career because a finding of gross misconduct could eventually lead to her removal from office, but such a decision would have to go through several processes.

Under the Constitution, a judge can be removed if the Judicial Service Commission finds that the judge is guilty of gross misconduct, the National Assembly supports the removal with a two-thirds majority, and the President formally removes the judge from office.

Hartle’s legal team has strongly disputed the allegations, with Heunis describing the charges as “trumped-up” during Monday’s proceedings and accusing Semekazi of being an emotionally unstable employee who was often absent from work and relied on colleagues to perform his duties, according to GroundUp.

Hartle maintains that the swear word she used was an expression of frustration rather than an insult directed at Semekazi. 

This comes just a month after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled that using the k-word amounts to hate speech even when it is said in a private conversation. 

SCA judgment 

Daily Maverick reported in October 2026 that a court found that racist language does not become acceptable simply because it is used behind closed doors, as the circumstances of a conversation do not change the racist and hateful nature of the word.

In its judgment on 7 October 2026, the SCA dismissed an appeal by businessman Willem Hendrik Ackerman, who had challenged a finding that his repeated use of the k-word during conversations with another white man amounted to unlawful hate speech.

While Hartle’s case concerns allegations of judicial misconduct rather than a hate speech complaint, the SCA ruling shows how seriously South African courts treat the use of racist language, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used.

The tribunal is expected to continue until November 18. DM