Johannesburg - A senior officer allegedly involved in the illegal rendition of Zimbabweans was given a reprieve in his legal bid to get his employer to temporarily halt disciplinary hearings against him.
Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) chief director of investigations and information management Matthews Sesoko lodged an urgent application at the Labour Court on Tuesday asking that it stop the disciplinary action by his employer, pending a Constitutional Court decision.
Sesoko and Ipid head Robert McBride have been suspended.
They are alleged to have compiled a report about the illegal rendition, then deleted information which had earlier recommended that former national Hawks boss Anwa Dramat and Gauteng Hawks head Shadrack Sibiya be criminally charged for their alleged rolein the matter.
McBride approached the court, saying Police Minister Nathi Nhleko’s decision to suspend and institute disciplinary proceedings against him without Parliament’s oversight was unconstitutional.
He won that court case and the matter was then referred to the Constitutional Court, where judgment has been reserved.
Sesoko argues that his case is similar to McBride’s and that Ipid must wait for the court’s ruling before putting him through a lengthy disciplinary process, which he is paying for from his own pocket.
Arguing at the Labour Court on Thursday, Seseko’s advocate, Bart Ford, said that just as Nhleko did not have the authority to appoint the Ipid head, it was also therefore illegal for him to have appointed Israel Kgamanyane to act in McBride’s post.
Since Kgamanyane was the one who instituted disciplinary proceedings against Sesoko, that process needed to be stopped until theConstitutional Court handed down judgment in McBride’s case, Ford said.
“He does not seek to avoid the disciplinary process; he wants to deal with disciplinary action that is lawful.
“Why allow him to go through the extremely lengthy disciplinary process whose costs he bears alone instead of waiting for the Constitutional Court decision?
“He is footing his own bill while the first and second respondents (Nhleko and Ipid) use taxpayers’ money to fund the case,” Ford said.
However, Judge Edwin Molahlehi said that if an institution like Ipid could spend money on lawyers, then taxpayers would still complain.
Judge Molahlehi also raised a concern about Sesoko approaching the Labour Court.
He said people were taking disciplinary hearings to the court, which went against the spirit of the Labour Relations Act.
Arguing on behalf of Ipid, advocate William Mokhari SC maintained that Sesoko misunderstood the judgment which ruled in McBride’s favour.
Mokhari said McBride’s situation differed from Sesoko’s in that the section of the Ipid act in dispute had been declared unconstitutional, in that McBride couldn’t be subjected to the same laws governing public service because that would make him an ordinary worker.
Judgment has been reserved.
The Star