Supreme Court blocks Free State judge's attempt to halt RAF prosecution
The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein refused to grant a judge, who allegedly while he was an attorney misappropriated funds belonging to a child, a stay of prosecution.
Image: File
A Free State judge's request for a permanent stay of prosecution of his theft, or money laundering trial, regarding the alleged misappropriation of Road Accident Funds from a client during his time as an attorney was denied by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Judge Mpina Abednego Mathebula of Bloemfontein had previously requested a stay of his prosecution, but the Free State High Court denied his request. He subsequently turned to the SCA, where he now faced yet another blow. He is facing criminal proceedings, together with his former candidate attorney, in a regional court ranging from theft to alternative charges of money laundering and fraud. He conducted his practice under the name of Uys Mathebula Attorneys, in Sasolburg, Free State.
He is alleged to have committed the crimes between July 2012 and May 2018, while practicing as an attorney. An elderly woman instructed Mathebula’s law firm to institute an action against the RAF on behalf of her young grandson, who had sustained injuries in a car accident. The claim was settled with the RAF and the high court made part of the settlement agreement an order of court, awarding the child R2.2 million plus costs, to be paid by the RAF.
In terms of the order the R2.2 million had to be paid into Mathebula Attorneys’ trust account for the sole benefit of the child. The State alleges in the charge sheet that Mathebula failed to keep this money in a trust account as ordered.
It is the State’s case that in addition to the amount of R2.2 million awarded by the high court, the RAF made interim settlement payments to his law firm, amounting to more than R900,000. The total amount paid to the law firm, inclusive of the award by the high court, is alleged to be R3,142,089, out of which R111,500 was paid to the complainant.
An amount of R1,258,110,13 was recovered from the second respondent {the candidate attorney} by way of settlement of an action instituted by the complainant against him. From the calculations made by an expert witness, there remains a balance of R1,329,092 unaccounted for.
In this regard, the allegation in the charge sheet is that Mathebula made various unlawful transfers from the law firm’s trust account into his business account. These alleged transfers constitute the charges of theft, alternatively fraud, and money laundering.
He earlier made representations to the DPP to have the criminal charges against him withdrawn. The request was declined, as well as a subsequent request.
Mathebula then turned to the courts. He submitted that the decision to prosecute him was based on a lack of appreciation for how attorney-and-client fees are compiled. He further argued that his right to dignity is being impaired merely by having to face a prosecution in which there were no facts to support.
The appellant also alleged that by being charged and appearing in the criminal court, the prosecution subjected him to embarrassment, ridicule and insults by members of the public and that his reputation and standing had been “brought down to ground zero”.
In addition, the appellant pleaded that being made to defend himself against the charges in the criminal trial cost him a substantial amount of money. Consequently, he concluded, he was being subjected to an ‘unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional prosecution”.
The appeal court noted that Mathebula's case was based on social prejudice and financial loss resulting from the prosecution. But, it said, this applies to every accused.
The SCA concluded that the appellant established no exceptional circumstances for the court’s intervention in the pending criminal proceedings.