The National Prosecuting Authority will succeed in not prosecuting suspended crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli as long as it delays finalising its disciplinary hearing against suspended prosecutor Glynnis Breytenbach.
This was the argument presented on Monday by Breytenbach’s legal representative, Wim Trengove, SC.
Trengove objected strongly to the NPA’s request for a postponement, arguing that Breytenbach would be prejudiced by the delay of the hearing.
The NPA had asked that the disciplinary hearing be postponed to Wednesday so it could study a Pretoria High Court judgment allowing the media to attend the hearing.
“My client is convinced that she was suspended to prevent her from prosecuting General (Richard) Mdluli.
“And as long as the NPA postpones her case, it is succeeding in (not prosecuting Mdluli).”
The boardroom of the NPA offices in Silverton was packed with members of the media – print and electronic – following a ruling handed down by Judge Ronel Tolmay earlier on Monday.
Breytenbach’s hearing follows her suspension on April 30.
The NPA gave Breytenbach notice in February of its intention to suspend her and asked her to give reasons why she should not be suspended.
The NPA said its reason for suspending Breytenbach – regional head of the specialised commercial crime unit – was that she allegedly abused her powers in relation to an investigation into mining rivals Kumba and Imperial Crown Trading.
William Mokhari, SC, for the NPA, argued that the prosecuting authority had the right to review the judgment as broadcasting the hearing live could prejudice some of the witnesses.
“We request to be given the opportunity to study the judgment and make an informed decision,” he said.
But Trengove strongly objected to the request for a postponement and said his client would be prejudiced by a delay.
“My client has been suspended for more than two months,” he said.
“A further delay of this hearing reflects negatively on her personal and professional integrity.”
Trengove also argued that a delay would entail extra legal costs for Breytenbach.
Mokhari argued that two days would not prejudice Breytenbach and that the NPA had the right to review the judgment.
“We don’t have a copy of the judgment and don’t know the reasons behind the ruling.
“We might appeal the decision or we might not. I cannot say without proper evaluation of the ruling.”
Trengove said that a day (June 19) had been wasted because of the NPA’s resistance to allowing the media to attend the hearing.
“The NPA debated all day (on the first day of the hearing) as to why the media should not be allowed and that is what led to the litigation by the media.
“The court did not only rule that the media could be present during the hearing, but also expressed its displeasure at the NPA’s behaviour by (granting a costs order) against the NPA to cover the cost of the application as well the services of three counsel.
“The NPA above all should obey the law.”
A further delay was caused by arguments relating to allowing other electronic media, except for M-Net’s Carte Blanche team.
Eventually an agreement was reached between Trengove and Mokhari.
They agreed that other forms of electronic media would be allowed if the media houses applied for a court order, which the NPA would not oppose; or if they reached an agreement with the NPA on the terms of their broadcasting.
The case will continue on Tuesday, when the involvement of electronic media is to be discussed.
Pretoria News