Magistrate using apartheid tactics, says lawyer
JOBURG lawyer Ike Motloung has accused a Pretoria magistrate of using apartheid-style tactics to force him to testify against a National Prosecuting Authority official who withdrew criminal charges against his client.
The accusations against magistrate JT Tsatsi came after he subpoenaed Motloung to appear before him to give details about NPA special commercial crimes unit head advocate Lawrence Mrwebi’s decision to withdraw criminal charges against crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli.
Tsatsi made the order on November 7 last year, soon after Freedom Under Law made an urgent court application for the reinstatement of fraud and corruption charges against Mdluli that had been withdrawn in December 2011.
The application was a direct challenge to Mrwebi’s decision to drop charges against Mdluli.
Mrwebi communicated his decision to Motloung, prompting Tsatsi to issue a section 205 order. Motloung has rejected the subpoena. In papers in the High Court in Joburg, he argues that agreeing to testify would compromise his trust relationship with Mdluli.
“The subpoena is reminiscent of that era of struggle for emancipation – during which the apartheid regime used to use every means at its disposal to try and destroy its actual or perceived enemies, including endeavours to force journalists to testify against their sources of information through the usage of the then notorious section 205 subpoenas, very much in abuse of section 205,” Motloung submitted.
He acknowledged making a representation to Mrwebi about fraud and corruption charges against Mdluli.
Motloung said the representation he made to Mrwebi was “confidential and only meant for the eyes and ears of Mr Mrwebi and those duly delegated by him”.
He also submitted that Mdluli did not want him to testify against Mrwebi.
“When he (Mdluli) approached me to represent him in his criminal case, he had to be assured of my professional- ism, including the fact that he could trust me literally with his life, future secrets (if any), and that I would never betray him by using any information acquired through my engagement with him against his best interest,” Motloung said.
The lawyer said the motive for the subpoena was to assist Freedom Under Law’s case against Mdluli. Freedom Under Law successfully challenged the withdrawal of fraud and corruption charges in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Mdluli is due to appear in court on Wednesday over the fraud and corruption charges.
Motloung argues that the section 205 order was aimed at getting Mrwebi fired as an advocate and prosecutor of the NPA. The lawyer mentions high-profile people in the documents and accuses them of having played prominent roles in the reinstatement of charges against Mdluli.
“It is now an open secret that there are all sorts of daggers drawn to try and unseat Mrwebi as a prosecutor and advocate. I am certain that wherever Mrwebi’s enemies and opponents find themselves, they are hoping and praying for the prospect of my assisting their objectives, by hopefully testifying negatively against him. I should be spared being forced into that debacle,” he said.
NPA spokesman Velekhaya Mgobhozi said there was nothing untoward about section 205.
He said the NPA did not have a letter from Mrwebi to Mdluli, informing him why he was withdrawing the charges.
However, Mrwebi said the letter was easily accessible as it was part of Freedom Under Law’s application.
National Director of Public Prosecutions Mxolisi Nxasana had never requested the letter, he said.
Mrwebi said: “If they ask me, I will give it to them because I’m not hiding anything.”