The ‘un-judge’ like letter from the judiciary 15/06/2014 03:00:00 BY WELCOME DLAMINI image High Court Registrar Fikile Nhlabatsi. On Wednesday June 11, 2014, a letter purportedly from the kingdom’s judiciary and signed by High Court Registrar Fikile Nhlabatsi was sent to the Swazi Observer newspaper regarding a ‘scandalous and contemptuous story’ of arrest warrants against three judges. In the letter, the newspaper was threatened with ‘legal consequences’ in the event it failed to provide proof of the arrest warrants within two days of having received the correspondence. The letter has now raised the ire of one prominent member of the judiciary – Judge Qinisile Mabuza – who has noted a number of flaws in the manner it was drafted. Of most concern to the judge is the language that was used. “The language is not judge-like. I am appalled by the contents of the letter which are not judge-like, especially addressed to the fourth estate. The fourth estate is recognised and respected all over the world; when you deal with them you do so in a respectful manner,” said the judge. She stated that Judges have a distinct language - befitting of their status - that they use and is not near the wording used in the letter directed to the Swazi Observer. The words that the Judge pointed out as not befitting of judges include ‘blatant lies’ and ‘defiant’ where the letter states thus: “When it was drawn to your attention that the allegation was false and a blatant lie aimed at scandalising the Chief Justice, the judiciary and the administration of justice in Swaziland, you remained defiant, issuing another publication on May 20, 2014 to the effect that you stood by your story.” The judge also pointed out words such as ‘dirty campaign’, which she said were not in the lexicon of judges. “No judge would ever write a letter like this. That is ethically and professionally wrong. There is a certain acceptable and delicate way with which you handle the media no matter how much they have hurt you,” Judge Mabuza said. Another concern raised by the judge is that they were not consulted when the letter was drafted yet it involved the ‘judiciary’. She said when such correspondences are drawn up, the judges are called upon to make an input before the final product is sent to the relevant party. “The registrar cannot write on our behalf and do so in the most appalling fashion, using words that a judge would never use. I would like to disassociate myself from this letter,” Judge Mabuza commented. What further concerns the Judge is the spirit of the letter as it seems to be perpetuating bad relations with the media yet the Judiciary’s function is the opposite of that. “The current impasse with the media should be handled in a peaceful and lasting manner. Peaceful solutions should be found, in a manner that is consistent with our job as judges. As Judges, we deal with conflict resolution on a daily basis and this should extend to the relations of the people we deal with outside court, including the press,” said the judge. In the letter, Judge Mabuza also noted that the Swazi Observer is accused of ‘scandalising’ Chief Justice Michael Ramodibedi and wondered about the context of this. She said the word ‘scandalising’ had now been interpreted by the Supreme Court in its recent judgement of the case against The Nation magazine Editor Bheki Makhubu. “We will have to look whether scandalising the chief justice is in accordance with the interpretation of the Supreme Court,” she said. In the article in question, the Swazi Observer said the three judges against whom the warrants had been issued were Justices Bheki Maphalala, Mumcy Dlamini and Mbutfo Mamba. The CJ reportedly felt the three were ignoring his orders and bringing the High Court into disrepute. It is said the Chief Justice alleged that Judge Bheki Maphalala was influencing his staff members not to take orders from him and was therefore spearheading a High Court rebellion. Judge Mamba is alleged to have tried taking over the bail application of The Nation Editor Bheki Makhubu and Human Rights Lawyer Thulani Maseko. This is alleged to have angered the CJ who decided to have him also arrested. Judge Mumcy, on the other hand, is regarded as the number one enemy of the CJ after he ruled that Ramodibedi erred in the way he issued the warrants of arrest that landed Makhubu and Maseko in jail. She released the duo but they were re-arrested soon after gaining freedom. The warrants against the three judges were not carried out. observer.org.sz/news/62904-the-%E2%80%98un-judge%E2%80%99-like-letter-from-the-judiciary.html
Posted on: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:28:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015