Tempers flare at Mdluli hearing

[Paul Hjul]

I think it's clear that he didn't have an answer to the question, but his point is that court process was not followed by dealing with the interdict as it should be a separate court case. Maybe that's what started this whole scuffle, because he presented the judge as not knowing what he's doing. But then again, what does that question have to do with the leave to appeal, or the submissions thereof? Mokhari is definitely wrong in the way he answered the question, especially the tone, but he definitely had to be allowed to make submissions on the main matter at hand - leave to appeal, not the interdict which was a side show.

Both guys are immature.

The judge very well knew what he was doing. The process for an application for leave to appeal is to approach the Registrar who in turn refers the matter to the judge who heard the original matter - which in the particular case was not Justice Murphy. BUT there are exceptions: if the judge who heard the matter is not available for example. The FUL was applying for Leave to Appeal another judges decision and the police had no basis to apply for the judge to not hear the application - they could simply state as much in a point in limine but the actual thing which they want is to remove impediments to Mduli returning to work. If it was conceded before Murphy that the National Commissioner does not wish for Mduli to return to work then it would have been perfectly proper for Murphy to have redirected the matter to the original judge. Had Mokhari answered that it is the intention to derail the interdict Murphy would have been empowered to query why that constitutes a case for the police to oppose the Leave to Appeal application.

The Leave to Appeal issue is materially less significant than the interdict - so to call the interdict a side show is to deliberately fudge the issue.

 

[MickeyD]

Mdluli case back in Court

An application for leave to appeal the judgement on former crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli is expected to be heard in the High Court in Pretoria on Monday.

Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba said on October 24 when the matter was last heard, "The matter is postponed sine die [indefinitely]... to give the national [police] commissioner an opportunity to file further papers in respect of issues that were raised in the matter."

Earlier, Judge John Murphy and William Mokhari, SC, for the SA Police Service (SAPS), clashed over the question of whether Mdluli should return to work.

Murphy was hearing an application by the SAPS and the National Director of Public Prosecutions for leave to appeal against an earlier ruling in favour of lobby group Freedom Under Law (FUL).

Following a disagreement between Murphy and Mokhari, the matter was taken to Ledwaba, who postponed proceedings.

Murphy's September ruling set aside a decision to withdraw criminal and disciplinary charges against Mdluli.

He criticised the decision to withdraw fraud and corruption charges against Mdluli, saying it was "illegal, irrational, based on irrelevant considerations and material errors of law".

Source : Sapa /aw