Maverick News

Mpofu tried to ‘humiliate me’ — ex-SARS executive Van Loggerenberg ahead of lawyer’s disciplinary

28 Apr 2025

Former South African Revenue Service senior executive Johann van Loggerenberg has confirmed that he has agreed to appear as a witness against advocate Dali Mpofu after Mpofu questioned his mental health during a 2022 hearing into former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office.

uMkhonto Wesizwe party member and well-known advocate Dali Mpofu will have to explain an apparent “pattern of bad behaviour” when he appears before the Legal Practice Council (LPC) for a disciplinary hearing this week. He faces seven charges relating to “various complaints” submitted to the LPC involving allegedly disparaging and sexist comments made during hearings and how he handled the cross-examination of witnesses.

Four of the charges relate to Mpofu’s conduct during the 2022 section 194 inquiry into former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s fitness to hold office. The charge sheet refers to Mpofu’s tense exchange with chairperson Qubudile Richard Dyantyi, in which Mpofu told Dyantyi: “You are going to regret this. I am telling you now. Your day will come.” When Dyantyi asked whether Mpofu was threatening him, he said: “Actually, it is not a threat, it’s a promise”. Mpofu is charged with bringing the legal profession into disrepute for these comments.

Impugning character

Mpofu is also charged with impugning the character of former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela and former South African Revenue Service executive Johann van Loggerenberg during the same inquiry.

During the 15 July 2022 cross-examination of Van Loggerenberg, Mpofu asked him whether he had “a mental problem”. After prompting from Van Loggerenberg to explain further, Mpofu asked: “Have you had a psychiatric type of problem?” Mpofu then abruptly changed focus, saying he didn’t want to breach Van Loggerenberg’s “confidential issues”.

Speaking to Daily Maverick in the lead-up to the hearing, Van Loggerenberg confirmed that he had been asked to testify in the inquiry and had agreed to be available if needed.

“I am prepared to testify solely because I regard it as my public duty to do so in the interests of upholding the rule of law,” he said.

“I have no personal position against Mr Mpofu as a human being. There is no agenda. I do, as a matter of principle, have an issue with people who are in positions of power, such as legal practitioners, in legal and quasi-legal fora, and the way in which they deal with witnesses.

“Whether it’s an examination or cross-examination is irrelevant. But there is an immediate power dynamic that means being responsible.”

Asked about the personal impact of Mpofu’s question, Van Loggerenberg said he felt it created a stigma linked to mental health, adding: “I saw it for what it was. It doesn’t mean he didn’t humiliate me, embarrass me and hurt me. He did. Of course he did.

“My affliction is something I picked up in my twenties that I was born with, and it was managed and dealt with at the time. I am completely compos mentis (of sound mind). I am a fully functional adult.”

Van Loggerenberg had worked at SARS before resigning in 2015 after being linked to a so-called rogue unit within the revenue service. Mkhwebane investigated the unit and made several adverse findings against those involved, which were later discredited. In 2022, SARS commissioner Edward Kieswetter issued a public apology to Van Loggerenberg and others linked to the unit, admitting that SARS “failed to defend and protect its employees when the false allegations and imputations of wrongdoing resurfaced in October 2014 and in the subsequent years thereafter”.

‘Pattern of behaviour’

The Council for the Advancement of the Constitution (Casac) is among those who complained about Mpofu. Its executive secretary, Lawson Naidoo, explains that the organisation had noted several instances in which Mpofu’s conduct fell “below the standard required” of a lawyer.

“We noticed a pattern of behaviour by advocate Mpofu where he seeks to intimidate witnesses or others that he’s engaged with. It revealed for us a pattern of behaviour that we felt is unbecoming of a legal practitioner that does not meet the ethical and professional standards that are required by the LPC’s code of conduct,” he said.

Casac would not testify at the inquiry but would attend to observe the process.

“Our view is that our role was to bring to the attention of the LPC. As the regulatory body for the legal profession, it is their responsibility to take the matter further.”

Mpofu did not respond to Daily Maverick’s calls for comment.

In a recent interview with SABC News the advocate called the charges “a shopping list concoction of things” and referred to some of the charges as “laughable”.

“These charges are very frivolous and completely unsustainable,” he said.

Mpofu said the charges that relate to his conduct in the section 194 inquiry “really must come from someone who doesn’t understand how courtroom situations work, or how the legal system works or what cross-examination actually is”.

“The essence of that is, I was trying to discredit the witness. That is the purpose of cross-examination. Now of course there are different styles… but you can’t call either one of those professional misconduct,” he said.

He also questioned why the LPC waited several years to bring charges against him.

Letter to judges

One of the most serious charges Mpofu faces relates to a letter sent to three high court judges who were presiding over a case involving former Old Mutual CEO Peter Moyo. Moyo had taken Old Mutual to court over his 2019 dismissal and was represented by Mpofu in court.

During the 2021 case the judges expressed concern about a number of procedural issues in the matter.

“Documents were still being filed the week before the hearing, and on the morning of the hearing further correspondence was received. During the hearing of oral argument the court said it had difficulty in dealing with a matter when presented in the manner in which the papers were presented to it,” the judges wrote in the final ruling. Mpofu apologised to the court and during the hearing tried to clarify the procedural issues and the main points of the case. The court wanted more clarity and asked the lawyers in the case to submit a practice note “defining all the issues, which fall for determination”.

A strongly worded letter was then sent to judges Joseph Raulinga, Mpostoli Twala and Ingrid Opperman, signed by attorney Rudolph Baloyi.

“Our client has instructed us to voice his strongest possible objection to the post-hearing process which has gradually developed in the days following the full arguments and total ventilation of the matter over a period of more than 12 hours of hearings, in which all parties duly exhausted the issues and responded to all questions from the Bench in open court and in public.”

The letter went on to suggest that the judges were biased towards Moyo.

“Our client’s concerns started with the manner of questions and interventions reserved for our client’s lead counsel, who were repeatedly questioned, including the unfair and unfounded accusation of making “political speeches”, which was correctly withdrawn with an apology only upon the protestation of Mpofu SC. The apology was accepted and that issue is therefore behind us. However, the latest developments have only served to increase and revive his earlier fears of a predetermined outcome and reasonable perception of bias,” the letter read.

The judges took exception to the tone and content of the letter, saying they would refer the matter to the LPC for investigation.

“We find the content of the applicant’s attorney’s letter particularly disquieting having regard to the subject matter at play in this hearing. As we indicated earlier, conduct of this nature could lead to a conclusion of unprofessional conduct,” the judgment read.

Baloyi withdrew as attorney of record during the course of the case. Contacted for comment, he confirmed that he had been contacted by the LPC regarding the contents of the letter. He added that he was invited to attend the proceedings but was uncertain whether he would be called on to give evidence. The LPC is of the view that Mpofu “caused” the letter to be drafted and sent to the judges and believes he has contravened several sections of the LPC Code of Conduct as a result.

Mpofu is also facing a charge relating to a comment made during the interview of now Chief Justice Mandisa Maya at the Judicial Service Commission, that he and Maya had “spent our nights together” during law school. Maya later clarified that she had studied overnight with Mpofu. The LPC viewed Mpofu’s comment as “discriminatory and laden with sexual innuendo, which was offensive, unprofessional and lacking decorum”.

The inquiry will begin on 30 May. DM

Categories:

Maverick News

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

Maverick News

Impugning character

‘Pattern of behaviour’

Letter to judges