Key Takeaways:
- A Free State high court judge, Mpina Abednego Mathebula, has lost his appeal to permanently stop his theft and money-laundering case.
- The case relates to the alleged misappropriation of Road Accident Fund (RAF) monies when Mathebula was an attorney.
- The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed Mathebula’s appeal, stating that he did not raise trial-related prejudice such as an unreasonable delay in the commencement and finalisation of his criminal trial.
- Mathebula is charged with theft, alternatively fraud, money laundering, and contempt of court, along with a co-accused, Tswantso Phillemon Melato.
- The case will now proceed to trial, with the state alleging that Mathebula misappropriated R2.2m meant for a minor who was injured in a motor vehicle accident.
Introduction to the Case
The Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of Free State high court judge, Mpina Abednego Mathebula, to permanently stop his theft and money-laundering case. The case relates to the alleged misappropriation of Road Accident Fund (RAF) monies when Mathebula was an attorney. Mathebula is charged with theft, alternatively fraud, money laundering, and contempt of court, along with a co-accused, Tswantso Phillemon Melato. The charges arose from Mathebula’s time running a law firm in Sasolburg over 10 years ago and have no relation to his duties or service as a judge.
The Allegations Against Mathebula
The state alleges that Mathebula committed the crimes between July 2012 and May 2018. In 2010, an elderly woman instructed Mathebula’s law firm to institute action against the RAF on behalf of her minor grandson, who had sustained bodily injuries in a motor vehicle accident. After the institution of the claim in the high court, the court awarded the child R2.2m plus costs, to be paid by the RAF. However, the state claims that Mathebula failed to deposit and keep the R2.2m in a trust investment account and also failed to establish a trust as ordered by the high court. Furthermore, the state alleges that Mathebula made various unlawful transfers from the law firm’s trust account into his business account, using money held in trust for his own benefit.
Mathebula’s Attempts to Stop the Case
Before his first court appearance in 2023, Mathebula instructed his attorneys to make representations to the Free State director of public prosecutions to have the criminal charges withdrawn. When this request was declined, a further request to the national director of public prosecutions met the same fate. Mathebula then approached the Free State High Court to apply for a permanent stay of prosecution. However, the high court refused to grant the permanent stay of prosecution, holding that the relief sought by Mathebula was drastic and should only be granted sparingly and in compelling circumstances.
The Supreme Court of Appeal’s Decision
Mathebula then appealed against the high court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which heard his application in September. The appellate court, comprised of five judges, dismissed his appeal, stating that two Constitutional Court judgments provided authority on permanent stays of criminal prosecutions. The SCA held that to succeed with an application for a permanent stay of a criminal prosecution, an applicant must prove trial-related prejudice, such as an unreasonable delay in the commencement and finalisation of the trial. However, Mathebula did not raise such prejudice, and his complaints concerned the merits of the state’s case and social prejudice and financial loss, which are inherent inconveniences suffered by every accused and are not regarded as trial-related prejudice.
Conclusion and Implications
In dismissing the appeal with costs, including the costs of two counsel, the SCA stated that Mathebula would have been aware that there was no trial-related prejudice in the grounds he relied upon for his application. The court said Mathebula established no exceptional circumstances warranting intervention in the pending criminal proceedings. The case will now proceed to trial, with the state alleging that Mathebula misappropriated R2.2m meant for a minor who was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The SCA’s decision serves as a reminder that frontal challenges to delay criminal trials should be discouraged, unless well-grounded, and that the courts will not hesitate to dismiss applications that lack merit.