Muthambi defends her legal advisor

Communications Minister Faith Muthambi giving a keynote address at the BMF’s Women of Excellence Gala Dinner as part of Women’s Month commemoration held at Protea Hotel in Limpopo. 23/08/2014 Kopano Tlape

Communications Minister Faith Muthambi giving a keynote address at the BMF’s Women of Excellence Gala Dinner as part of Women’s Month commemoration held at Protea Hotel in Limpopo. 23/08/2014 Kopano Tlape

Published Jul 28, 2015

Share

Parliament - It emerged on Tuesday that the attorney on whose advice Communications Minister Faith Muthambi relied to dismiss a parliamentary legal opinion that the recent removal of three SABC board members was unlawful, was struck off the roll eight years ago.

Muthambi confirmed that this was the case after it was picked up by the Democratic Alliance, but countered that he was re-admitted in 2011 and said she was happy with his services.

“While Mr (Daniel) Mantsha was struck off the roll of attorneys in 2007, it is important to note that he was readmitted in 2011 by the High Court of South Africa’s Gauteng Provincial Division and declared as a fit and proper person to practice as an attorney,” her spokesman Mishack Molakeng said.

“The minister is aware of this history, but more importantly, is satisfied with the quality services rendered by Mr Mantsha”.

But DA communications spokesman Gavin Davis said Mantsha’s history was relevant, especially since it was apparent that during a crucial meeting with Parliament’s portfolio committee last month that he was giving her poor advice.

“It has emerged that the Minister Muthambi’s legal advisor, Daniel Mantsha, was struck off the roll of attorneys in 2007,” DA communications spokesman Gavin Davis said.

“This is significant because it was on Mr Mantsha’s advice that Minister Muthambi recently overturned Parliament’s legal opinion on the removal of three SABC board members. Now that we know Mr Mantsha is a discredited lawyer, it follows that his advice to the minister can be discredited too.”

The Law Society of the Northern Provinces in 2007 successfully went to to court to seek Mantsha’s removal from the roll of attorneys. Noting that he had been practicing for about six years, a high court found that he had behaved in a “dishonest and deceitful manner” and had not shown the “degree of skill, care and attention expected of a practitioner”.

“Taken cumulatively, the respondent’s conduct referred to in this judgment demonstrates that [Mantsha] is not a fit and proper person to continue to practice as an attorney but that the only proper sanction is that of striking from the roll.”

Davis said the judgment painted a picture of a somebody whose career was “blighted by a litany of misconduct”.

He recalled that Mantsha was at Muthambi’s side in June when she told parliament’s portfolio committee on communications that legal opinion it had solicited from Parliament’s legal advisors on the proper procedure for removing board members was “very wrong”.

“Mr Mantsha’s testimony before the Committee failed to provide any compelling reasons to disregard Parliament’s legal opinion,” Davis said.

Moreover, he added, Mantsha had been wrong in arguing that, since none of the axed board members had contested their removal, there was no reason to consider reinstating them.

A few days after that meeting, one of the former board members, Ronnie Libisi, went on record that he had complained about his removal to the chairwoman of the portfolio committee, Joyce Moloi-Moropa.

Davis said he had written to Moloi-Moropa to request an urgent meeting of the committee, which he believed should now reinstate Libisi and the two other members, Hope Zinde and Rachel Kalidass.

It seems unlikely that the committee will heed Davis. After initially welcoming the legal opinion supplied by Parliament’s Nathi Mjenxane, it appeared to make an about turn at a later meeting where Moloi-Moropa was absent, and to back the minister.

In the June meeting, Muthambi insisted that under the Companies Act, the board had the right to remove its own members without the involvement of the president. Mjenxane had held that the Broadcasting Act was the governing legislation in this regard, and said it stated plainly that only the president could remove board members of the public broadcaster, after proper inquiry.

But Muthambi was unapologetic, and accused Parliament of flouting the constitutional separation of powers by seeking to prescribe to a member of the executive which legislation to apply.

“It is not a function of Parliament to tell a member of the executive which law must be applied over other legislation… it offends the doctrine of separation of powers.”

ANA

Related Topics: