Jiba, Mrwebi accuse GCB of bringing new evidence in ConCourt battle
Two suspended NPA top prosecutors, Advocates Nomgcobo Jiba and Lawrence Mrwebi, have accused the General Council of the Bar (GCB) of bringing new evidence in their bid to ask the Constitutional Court to dismiss them from their jobs.
Jiba and Mrwebi made the claims on Thursday morning in the ConCourt after the GCB filed an appeal to the apex court to dismiss the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling in July last year that Jiba and Mrwebi were fit and proper people to hold office in the NPA.
During the appeal hearing, Senior Counsels for GCB, Advocates Schalk Burger and Geoff Budlender, argued that the SCA failed to make a finding that Jiba met the requirements to be appointed to a senior positions in the NPA.
According to Adv Burger - who initially led the argument, said Jiba was not an admitted advocate of the High Court saying it should have precluded her from being considered for any senior positions in the NPA.
Adv Burger said if the SCA had conducted an investigations into her conduct, it would have made a ruling that Jiba was not a fit and proper person to hold a senior positions in the NPA.
Budlender argued that six months suspension given to Mrwebi following his decision to “unilaterally” withdraw criminal charges against former crime intelligence boss, Richard Mdluli, was taken by despite being a dishonest witness during the High Court in Pretoria hearing.
“It is indisputable that his evidence was dishonest,” Budlender argued.
But Jiba and Mrwebi disagreed.
Jiba’s legal counsel Adv Norman Arendse SC, argued that the Constitutional Court should not consider GCB’s appeal saying they were bringing new evidence which was not raised in the SCA.
“It is a late tactic on the part of GCB,” Arendse said.
He said the SCA made a ruling in favour of Jiba based on factual evidence placed before it and the GCB had failed to bring constitutional issues for the attention of the appeal.
Arendse also said the constitutional issues raised before the ConCourt was not even mention before the High Court in Pretoria.