Key Takeaways:
- A Free State high court judge, Mpina Abednego Mathebula, has failed in his bid to permanently stop the continuation of his theft and money-laundering case.
- The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed Mathebula’s appeal against a Free State High Court order, which had dismissed his application for a permanent stay of prosecution.
- Mathebula is charged with theft, alternatively fraud, money laundering, and contempt of court, related to the alleged misappropriation of Road Accident Fund (RAF) monies when he was an attorney.
- The state alleges that Mathebula committed the crimes between July 2012 and May 2018, and that he failed to deposit and keep R2.2m in a trust investment account, as ordered by the high court.
- The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Mathebula did not raise trial-related prejudice, and that his complaints concerned the merits of the state’s case, which only the trial court could determine.
Introduction to the Case
The Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of a Free State high court judge, Mpina Abednego Mathebula, who was seeking to permanently stop the continuation of 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 charges against Mathebula arose from his time running a law firm in Sasolburg over 10 years ago and have no connection to his duties or service as a judge. Mathebula is charged together with Tswantso Phillemon Melato, who took over Mathebula’s law firm when the latter was appointed as a judge in 2017.
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 alleges that Mathebula failed to deposit and keep the R2.2m in a trust investment account, as ordered by the high court. Furthermore, Mathebula made various unlawful transfers from the law firm’s trust account into his business account, which were allegedly made from money held in trust to Mathebula’s credit.
The Proceedings So Far
Mathebula was summoned to appear in the Kroonstad specialised commercial crimes court in March 2023 to face charges of theft, alternatively fraud, money laundering, and contempt of court. Before his first court appearance, Mathebula instructed his attorneys to make representations to the Free State director of public prosecutions to have the criminal charges withdrawn. When that 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, which was refused. The high court held 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, which heard his application in September. The appellate court, comprised of five judges, dismissed his appeal. The court held that two Constitutional Court judgments provided authority on permanent stays of criminal prosecutions, and that to succeed with an application for a permanent stay, an applicant must prove trial-related prejudice. The court found that Mathebula did not raise trial-related prejudice, such as an unreasonable delay in the commencement and finalisation of his criminal trial. Instead, Mathebula’s complaints concerned the merits of the state’s case, which only the trial court could determine.
The Reasoning Behind the Decision
The Supreme Court of Appeal noted that Mathebula’s complaint was two-fold: first, that the charges lacked a proper legal foundation; and second, that he was suffering undue social prejudice and financial loss because of the prosecution. However, the court held that none of these constitutes trial-related prejudice. The court also noted that frontal challenges that serve only to delay criminal trials should be discouraged, unless well-grounded. In dismissing the appeal with costs, including the costs of two counsel, the court said that Mathebula would have been aware that there was no trial-related prejudice in the grounds he relied upon for his application.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision to dismiss Mathebula’s appeal is a significant development in the case. The court’s reasoning highlights the importance of trial-related prejudice in applications for permanent stays of criminal prosecutions. The case will now proceed to trial, where the merits of the state’s case against Mathebula will be determined. The outcome of the trial will have significant implications for Mathebula’s future as a judge and for the administration of justice in South Africa.