Former president Jacob Zuma’s court bid to compel retired justice Sisi Khampepe to produce records of her WhatsApp and emails as she faces “bias” allegations has failed before the high court in Johannesburg.
Zuma, in an interlocutory application, wanted the court to compel Khampepe to disclose her emails sent to advocate Ishmael Semenya.
The interlocutory application for disclosure of Khampepe’s communication was made by Zuma in his main application seeking for Khampepe to step down as chair of the judicial commission of inquiry established to determine whether attempts were made to prevent the investigation and prosecution of apartheid-era crimes.
Zuma, represented by advocate Dali Mpofu, argued a whistleblower reported that Khampepe committed actions that amount to bias, gross misconduct or corruption in that she allegedly colluded with the commission evidence leader, Semenya, in the application that sought Semenya’s recusal from the commission in November 2025.
The whistleblower alleged Khampepe advised Semenya of weaknesses in his case and “even went as far as sharing research in her possession regarding the dispute and telling him to convey certain tips to advocate Vas Soni SC, who was representing Semenya SC”.
Zuma contended the allegation points to bias and gross misconduct in relation to Khampepe. To prove Khampepe’s misconduct allegations was a crucial part of the Zuma case in wanting her removal from the inquiry.
The commission denied the allegations against Khampepe but did not file an answering affidavit opposing the application for disclosure of the emails.
Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi argues former Pres Jacob Zuma said he had secret evidence of communication between justice Sisi Khampepe and Advocate Ishmael Semenya but failed to provide such and now wants the court to compel commission to substantiate his claim.@BDliveSA pic.twitter.com/hAZ04f0OF0
— Sine🌻🗞️ (@Sinesipho_LR) March 17, 2026
On Monday acting Gauteng deputy judge president Thifhelimbilu Mudau dismissed the main application because of failure to obtain permission before litigating against Khampepe.
Zuma and former president Thabo Mbeki did not follow section 47 of the Superior Courts Act, which requires litigants against a judge to first apply to the head of a court before initiating a case.
“The documents sought relate directly to the applicants’ allegations of actual bias and misconduct on the part of the first respondent [Khampepe].
“To rule on the interlocutory application without determining the threshold question of whether the main application is property before the court would be procedurally unsound. If the main application were to be dismissed on jurisdictional or other preliminary grounds, the interlocutory application would become moot,” Mudau said.
With the main application dismissed, Mudau found the request for records was bound to fail.
“The main application is a nullity; it follows that the interlocutory application to compel compliance with Rule 53(1)(b) falls away. There is no competent main application in respect of which further discovery or record supplementation can be ordered.
“Accordingly, no ruling on the merits of the interlocutory application is necessary or competent. The ruling reserved on that application is hereby discharged, and the application to compel is dismissed as moot.”
This means Zuma, without having evidence of the bias on his own, cannot prove the case of misconduct against Khampepe.
Business Day
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.