Durban - KwaZulu-Natal Judge President Chiman Patel will himself be in the dock next month facing a charge of crimen injuria relating to an incident a year ago when he allegedly swore at a court clerk in his chambers - a claim he has emphatically denied.
National Prosecuting Authority spokesman Nathi Mncube confirmed on Wednesday that Provincial Director of Public Prosecutions advocate Moipone Noko had decided to prosecute the senior judge.
He said a summons had been served and Judge Patel would appear in the Durban Regional Court in early November.
Judge Patel confirmed he had received notification of the decision but did not elaborate on whether he had actually been served with the summons.
He said he was not in a position to comment further.
The issue was first made public in a weekend newspaper in October last year. It was alleged that the clerk had laid a criminal charge against Patel following an exchange of words in his chambers.
It was alleged that she had been called in to discuss her work performance and Judge Patel had questioned her about her duties.
In interviews with the media, he denied that he had verbally abused or that he had sworn at the clerk and said he had read the newspaper article “with disgust” and that it had damaged his reputation.
He alleged that he was unpopular in some quarters because he was cracking the whip on inefficiencies at the court.
“I’m not going to tolerate inefficiency. I want the high court to run properly,” he was reported as saying, admitting that he had reprimanded the clerk in the presence of the court manager.
The act of crimen injuria is to intentionally and unlawfully impair a person’s dignity or privacy.
Patel denied doing so and said he was hurt by the allegation.
He said justice must run its course “and if they want to charge me, they must do so”.
A court source told The Mercury on Wednesday that, to his knowledge, no other judge president had faced criminal charges in recent history and it was a “helluva thing”.
“Yes, there have been traffic fines. But that is about it. I would think the Chief Justice should be informed of the decision because he would certainly have an interest in the matter although he clearly cannot interfere.
“When the allegation was first made it sounded like a bit of a storm in a teacup. It seems odd that, a year later, there is a decision to prosecute.”
A lawyer, who also did not wish to be named, said the crime usually attracted a fine of about R5 000.
“This could be a perfect case for alternate dispute resolution although in those cases, usually the accused has to admit guilt. The Judge President might not want to do that.”
Lulami Luti, spokeswoman in the office of the Chief Justice, said she could not comment.
The Mercury