Bar wants Jiba review

THE general council of the Bar will approach the Constitutional Court to have another look at a judgment that allowed Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions Nomgcobo Jiba and Special Director of Public Prosecutions Lawrence Mrwebi to practise as advocates.

The majority of members of the Bar, during a meeting last weekend, felt the pair should not be allowed to practise as advocates.

The Bar was earlier successful in its application to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, to have the pair’s names struck from the roll of advocates. It said they were not fit and proper to serve as advocates. The high court, in a scathing judgment mostly against Jiba, agreed.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), however, this month upheld an appeal by the pair against the high court judgment.

The SCA found Jiba and Mrwebi’s conduct was perhaps not impeccable, but the majority of the judges held it at most warranted a suspension, and not having their names removed from the roll.

Incompetence

However, two SCA judges, in a minority judgment, agreed that the pair’s appeal should be dismissed and that their names should be struck from the roll of advocates.

They found Jiba’s conduct extended beyond mere incompetence. Her conduct also demonstrated a disregard of the duty of an advocate. A similar finding was made regarding Mrwebi.

The Bar, during its annual general meeting at the weekend, discussed the SCA judgment and voted on it.

Francois Botes, the chairperson of the Pretoria Society of Advocates, said 18 members had voted in favour of taking the matter to the Constitutional Court, while 12 members voted for the Bar to abide by the SCA judgment. Two members elected not to vote.

“It is absolutely the right decision to approach the Constitutional Court,” Botes said.

The Bar will, however, first have to ask the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal against the SCA judgment.

In the majority judgment, SCA acting deputy president Jerry Shongwe said, regarding Jiba: “Perhaps one may infer some form of incompetence with regard to her duties, which may be a ground to remove her from being in the position, but it is not sufficient enough to be removed from the roll of advocates.”

Regarding Mrwebi, the SCA said it was prepared to find that the Bar succeeded in establishing some wrongdoing on his part, but because there was no personal gain from Mrwebi’s conduct, the sanction handed down to him was not justified.

Mrwebi was suspended by the SCA as an advocate for six months, but this was backdated to September 2016, when the original high court judgment was delivered.