to set aside the refusal by Speaker Baleka Mbete, a close Zuma ally, to have a vote of no confidence in the President conducted by secret ballot. The opposition parties had argued that the secret ballot was necessary to ensure that ANC MPs could vote against the President without fear of retribution. Shortly before this, however, Mogoeng had cautioned, in a contentious judgment that failed to win the support of a majority of his colleagues, that judges must respect the separation of powers and defer appropriately to the executive, and on this basis refused to accede to complaints that the government's controversial policy on new television broadcast technologies was unlawful. Much more high-profile was his dissent in Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly (No. 2), in which opposition parties had argued that Parliament had not taken adequate steps to hold Zuma to account in terms of the order issued by the Court in the first EFF judgment. On this occasion Mogoeng was strongly opposed to finding against Parliament; he described the majority judgment, which upheld the opposition parties' complaints, as "a textbook case of judicial overreach" and criticised his colleagues for overstepping the separation of powers. The majority judgment, though authored by Mogoeng's usual ally, Jafta J, describes this "unprecedented" allegation as "misplaced and unfortunate"; and Froneman J was motivated to write a judgment of his own, saying that Mogoeng's characterisation of the majority's position "does nothing to further the debate". The EFF was highly critical of Mogoeng's judgment, as well as his conduct at the court sitting when the judgment was delivered: Mogoeng had interrupted Jafta J, mid-delivery, to insist that he read out his (Mogoeng's) judgment in full. The EFF described this as an "abuse of power" and an "unacceptable" show of disrespect to a fellow judge. It also insinuated that, as a result of being "over-celebrated", Mogoeng had become "a monster". One leading commentator said Mogoeng's "very serious" attack on the majority judgment was "difficult to comprehend"; others, however, defended his right to dissent. Gender violence In F v Minister of Safety and Security, in an apparent riposte to critics of his allegedly patriarchal views, Mogoeng strongly deplored sexual violence and held the state liable to compensate a young girl who had been raped by an off-duty policeman. And in 2013 he was praised for his "unexpected progressiveness" at the hearing of Teddy Bear