Suspended advocates in bid to stay on roll
TWO suspended NPA prosecutors, advocates Nomgcobo Jiba and Lawrence Mrwebi, will today argue in the Constitutional Court the need to uphold the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) decision which found them fit to act as advocates.
In July last year, three judges of the SCA found that the High Court in Pretoria acted harshly against Mrwebi and Jiba in its decision to strike them off the roll of advocates. Two judges of the SCA differed sharply with the majority decision.
The minority judges agreed with the application of the General Council of the Bar (GCB) of South Africa in the High Court in Pretoria that the two were not fit to hold office in the NPA.
The court case followed an application of the GCB in which it argued that the two should be struck off the roll of advocates for the “illegal” withdrawal of criminal charges against former crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli.
The GCB argued that Mrwebi withdrew the charges without consulting with the prosecutors and investigating team who dealt with the matter.
The GCB also argued that Jiba, as the then acting national director of public prosecutions (NDPP), failed to review her decision. Other allegations against Jiba relate to her decision to charge former KwaZulu-Natal Hawks boss General Johan Booysen with racketeering in August 2012.
Now the Concourt will hear arguments from all the parties on whether it should uphold the decision of the majority judges or reject it in favour of the minority findings.
The majority judges based their findings on evidence in the High Court in Pretoria by two prosecutors who made affidavits supporting Jiba’s version that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Mdluli in December 2011.
In their ruling, the majority judges said: “It follows therefore that the GCB failed to establish any misconduct against Jiba. Therefore the first jurisdictional requirement was lacking.
“In the circumstances of this case, there is no need to deal with a value judgment to determine whether Jiba is a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of advocates. Therefore even the sanction imposed of striking her name from the roll does not arise,” the majority judges ruled.
They said the High Court in Pretoria “materially misdirected itself when it came to the conclusion that the decision is one no reasonable court could make”. The majority judges agreed that Mrwebi failed to consult with his counterpart in the prosecution and investigating team in his decision to withdraw the charges but the punishment meted out against him was harsh by the court.
The majority judges found that Mrwebi did not receive any benefit from his decision.
The GCB will argue that the Concourt should endorse the decision of the minority judges and uphold the high court’s ruling.