Johannesburg - A private law firm has pinned President Cyril Ramaphosa and the National Police Commissioner Khehla Sitole into a compromising position.
The legal representatives of the duo are reportedly having a torrid time in court over the exhuming of a baby for DNA testing.
This comes after an Ekurhuleni mother allegedly buried the wrong child, who was “forcefully” given to her after birth at the Far East Rand Hospital.
Zizipho Ranuga, 25, recently told The Star that the hospital gave her a child who looked completely different to the one she had given birth to.
The baby was buried on May 8 at Lala Ngoxolo Cemetery in Crystal Park, Benoni.
The mother has since turned to Marweshe Inc Attorneys, who have obtained court orders instructing Sitole to initiate the process of exhuming the baby. However, Sitole is in contempt of these court judgments.
A high court draft order dated September 9 indicates that Sitole was in contempt of a judgment handed down on July 30.
“The second respondent (Sitole) must, within 2 days of the service of this order, take steps necessary to purge the contempt of the judgment handed down on July 30,” the draft order says.
“Should the second respondent fail to purge the contempt, the second respondent must file an affidavit within 5 days explaining why he should not be arrested/committed for being in contempt of the judgment handed down on July 30.”
Sitole’s perennial failure to comply with the judgments eventually led to the inclusion of President Cyril Ramaphosa as a third respondent in the proceedings.
Another high court draft order dated September 22 states that Sitole’s failure to comply with the judgments constitutes a violation of Section 165(1) of the Constitution.
The order stipulates that Ramaphosa must take the necessary steps, within 30 days, to ensure that Sitole complies with the judgment handed down on July 30. Sitole was given two days to take the necessary action to purge the contempt of the order.
“Should the second respondent fail to comply with the order, the police are authorised to arrest and commit the second respondent until the order is purged,” the draft order reads.
Sitole launched an urgent application on November 3, however the application was withdrawn in court, which saw the commissioner incurring costs for lack of urgency.
Meanwhile, Ramaphosa’s legal team is arguing that the president was not served with the application for his joinder while contesting the president’s inclusion in the matter.
In a certificate of urgency filed at the high court through one of the president’s legal representatives, it is stated that there was an irregularity in the joinder application on the grounds of non-service or defective service of the first respondent's application for the joinder of the president.
“The joinder of the president on grounds of either necessity or convenience constitutes a misjoinder in that the first respondent neither demonstrated a direct or substantial interest in the outcome of the application, nor did she set out any factual or legal basis for the joinder in the founding affidavit in support of that joinder.”
The president's urgency certificate further states that the order that the president must take steps necessary to ensure that the commissioner complies with the court orders was erroneously sought, and erroneously granted “in that it was with respect, not legally competent for the honourable court to have granted it”.
The Star has seen Ranuga’s responding affidavit, disputing the president's legal representative’s claims.
In the affidavit, Ranuga said the president’s urgent application sought to bypass the rules relating to service and time periods prescribed by the rules of court, and to avoid having to wait in the queue of litigants waiting to have their matters heard in the ordinary time periods.
“It is clear that the deponent (the president’s legal representative) is urgently trying to do what could be described as damage control.
“The deponent is under the impression that just because the president is left with a few days to comply with the order granted by Justice Makhoba, that ignites some sort of entitlement to launch an urgent application to rescind and set aside part of the order.”
The affidavit states that the president’s failure to approach the court as soon as he became aware of the existence of the order granted by Justice Makhoba could be attributed to a failed legal strategy that was betting on the urgent application that was launched by the police chief on November 3.
National police spokesperson Brigadier Vishnu Naidoo and his counterpart, Colonel Athlenda Mathe, committed to providing a response, but this did not materialise.
The Star