Pretoria - The appointment of controversial Hawks head, Lieutenant-General Berning Ntlemeza is being challenged in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, by the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) and Freedom Under Law (FUL).
The two bodies on Tuesday asked a full bench – three judges – to review and set aside his appointment by police minister Nathi Nhleko.
Advocate David Unterhalter SC, argued that the appointment of Ntlemeza was unlawful, irregular and irrational. in light of findings and remarks made by two judges in previous cases.
Ntlemeza was appointed as head of the Hawks seven months after high court Judge Elias Matojane made some damning remarks regarding Ntlemeza’s character. The judge, in overturning the suspension of then Gauteng head of the Hawks, Major-General Shadrack Sibiya, in February last year remarked that Ntlemeza was “biased and dishonest” and that he “lacked integrity and honour.”
KwaZulu-Natal Judge Anton van Zyl made similar remarks when the head of the Hawks in that province, Major-General Johan Booysen challenged his axing by Ntlemeza. The judge at the time said the decision to suspend Booysen was taken in bad faith and for ulterior purposes.
According to Unterhalter Cabinet and the Minister of Police should have considered these findings when they appointed Ntlemeza into the top post of head of the Hawks. He said these judicial pronouncements could not have been simply been ignored when Ntlemeza was appointed.
The HSF and FUL earlier this year lost its bid for an urgent order to have Ntlemeza suspended, pending these review proceedings. Judge Neil Tuchten at the time turned down the urgent application, although he did remark that on the arguments before him, the two bodies did seem to have a good case on review.
FUL and the HSF at the time argued that Ntlemeza lacked integrity and that each day he remained in office, he posed a risk to the country as he made high level decisions of great importance and consequences.
But Judge Tuchten said there was nothing placed before him to prove that Ntlemeza lacked integrity. He said he had difficulty in judging Ntlemeza’s character solely on the findings made by the other two judges during motion court proceedings. He said he did not even have the record of those proceedings before him so that he could decide whether or not he agreed with the comments made by the two judges.
The judge remarked that the judges hearing the review application, would be in a better position to decide on Ntlemeza's fitness to hold office.
Unterhalter meanwhile on Tuesday argued that there are damning pronouncements by two courts in the past that speaks to Ntlemeza's suitability to hold office as national head of the Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation, yet these pronouncements have completely been ignored when he was appointed.
He said the court should ask itself the question whether Ntlemeza was a fit and proper person to serve in this high office.
Proceeding