Judicial Corruption Trial Delayed: Judge, Pastor Face Bribery Charges in 2026

A sitting Gauteng High Court judge stands accused of accepting bribes to manipulate court rulings, and the public will have to wait longer for answers. The corruption trial of International Pentecostal Holiness Church pastor Bhekumuzi Michael Sandlana and Judge Portia Phahlane, along with five co-accused, will not resume until November 2026. The Pretoria Specialised Commercial Crimes Court heard that on Thursday, 23 July 2026.

The delay is procedural, but its implications reach further. Defence lawyers are still working through thousands of pages of evidence disclosed by prosecutors. State prosecutor Advocate Willem Van Zyl confirmed the defence received the case docket on 7 and 13 July. Legal representatives indicated they were not yet finished reviewing the material.

Additional reference context is available at https://www.citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/courts/defence-docket-judge-phahlane-corruption-case/.

For ordinary citizens, the postponement raises an uncomfortable question: how quickly can a justice system investigate one of its own?

The charges are serious. Judge Phahlane, currently on special leave, allegedly accepted at least R2.4 million in bribes to deliver favourable rulings for Sandlana in a protracted leadership dispute within the IPHC. Her son, Kagiso Phahlane, is also among the accused, as are Sandlana’s spokesperson Vusi Ndala, Tshepo Desmond Phuthi, and two others. All face multiple counts of corruption and money laundering. The integrity of the courts, and the public’s ability to trust them, sits at the heart of the matter.

During Thursday’s hearing, defence advocate Christo Meiring, representing Sandlana and Ndala, signalled the defence may seek further particulars from the state. Meiring noted that approximately 6,000 pages of cellphone records had not been included in the docket, a gap that could affect the defence’s ability to prepare properly. That disclosure issue adds another layer of complexity to an already sprawling case.

Meanwhile, asset recovery authorities have moved in parallel. Last month, the Asset Forfeiture Unit secured a preservation order over a Hartbeespoort property registered in Judge Phahlane’s name. The house, valued at R6 million and purchased in 2022, is suspected of having been acquired with proceeds from unlawful activities. The Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, the Hawks, presented evidence suggesting the alleged bribery scheme unfolded between late 2021 and early 2022, with cash payments allegedly exchanged at meetings held in Brits, Nigel and Pretoria East.

The trial’s backdrop is a long-running succession dispute within the IPHC that has consumed both the church and the courts for years. Founded by Frederick Modise in the 1960s, the church fractured after the death of his son, Glayton Modise, in 2016. Three factions emerged, each claiming the right to the position of IPHC “comforter”: brothers Tshepiso and Leonard Modise, and Sandlana, who claims to be a biological son of the late leader.

Judge Phahlane was assigned to the IPHC case in May 2022, shortly after her appointment to the bench in 2021. In March 2023, Leonard Modise brought a recusal application, arguing he might not receive a fair hearing given the bribery allegations. The judge dismissed the motion.

Thursday’s hearing also resolved a separate procedural matter. Co-accused Tshepo Desmond Phuthi had failed to appear at a March hearing due to a health-related issue, triggering a stayed warrant of arrest. Van Zyl confirmed Phuthi had since appeared and submitted a medical certificate. Magistrate Nicca Setshoga approved the withdrawal of the warrant.

The bail picture across the accused remains uneven. Most are out on bail; the sixth accused was released on warning. Sandlana himself remains in custody (he was denied bail on two occasions, including an unsuccessful appeal), a fact that reflects how seriously authorities regard the allegations against him.

The case resumes on 2 November 2026. Whether the proceedings, when they do continue, will deliver the transparency that public confidence in the judiciary demands is the question that will hang over every future hearing date.