Booysen back at his desk inside an hour
THE head of the Hawks in KwaZulu-Natal, Major-General Johan Booysen, was back at his desk yesterday, less than an hour after winning yet another court battle.
The judge ruled that his latest suspension was tainted by “ulterior motives” and there was a “strong suggestion” of a relentless campaign to get rid of him.
As a mark of “censure” against Hawks boss Lieutenant-General Berning Ntlemeza – who was found to have suspended Booysen in September without any evidence that he had committed the fraud complained of – Durban High Court Judge Anton van Zyl granted a punitive costs order.
He stopped short of making a personal costs order against Ntlemeza, but said he should give serious thought to a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment which spoke of “holding officials who behave in a highhanded manner personally liable for (legal) cost in order to have a sobering effect on truant public office bearers”.
Apart from setting aside the suspension, he extended the order to prevent Booysen from being suspended again on the same allegations pending the outcome of any disciplinary hearing, saying: “It is not unreasonable to suppose that further attempts may be made.”
A source said Ntlemeza had instructed Booysen to stay away from the office because he intended to appeal against the ruling. But Booysen was refusing to comply and said he would go back to court if necessary.
Booysen has successfully fought off criminal charges of racketeering (for being the alleged leader of a “death squad” which operated within the Cato Manor organised crime unit) and related disciplinary charges in judgments scathing of those who instituted them.
He has also challenged and defeated several attempts to suspend him.
He has consistently alleged that there was a campaign to stop him from investigating corruption involving senior police officers including KZN provincial commissioner, Mmamonnye Ngobeni.
The latest suspension was on an allegation that he had committed fraud in a document written in 2008 which recommended monetary awards to himself and members of the unit for their investigations into the murder of Superintendent Zethembe Chonco.
In detailed representations to Ntlemeza, Booysen said he had not authored the document, had not approved the awards and that the alleged fraud was actually just a typing error in two case numbers.
He attached supporting affidavits from Superintendent Willie Olivier, who wrote the document, and (retired) assistant commissioner Pat Brown, who signed it.
Judge van Zyl described it as “disturbing” that Ntlemeza had not considered those representations.
“In answer to the direct allegation of male fides for ignoring Brown’s version of events, Ntlemeza merely denied having sight of the affidavit and then makes the unsupported opinion that Booysen ‘was clearly the author and a careful scrutiny of the document reveals this’.
“With regard to the history of action against Booysen, he simply states he has no personal knowledge of it. “By blandly asserting to be within his rights to suspend Booysen suggests an unfettered arbitrary discretion to be exercised at will as a matter of entitlement, irrespective of whether the allegations have any merit.
“Suspension under these circumstances is constitutionally offensive,” he said.
In what could substantially weaken any disciplinary inquiry into the alleged fraud, the judge also dealt with the merits of the allegations, ruling that there were no grounds to any of them.
“A strong suggestion arises that there is an ongoing move, possibly even a campaign, to unseat Booysen. There is not sufficient evidence before this court to draw firm conclusions in this regard, but it is noteworthy that Ntlemeza has embarked, for reasons unclear, upon a course of action which was unsustainable on the information at his disposal.”
Booysen’s attorney, Carl van der Merwe, confirmed that his client was already back at work.
He said the disciplinary hearing about the alleged fraud had been initiated but had been stalled because of a technical challenge.
Criminal charges are still pending against 27 members of the unit, but the matter cannot be set down for trial until the outcome of a court challenge.