Willem Kempen | A sober moment in a drunken saga

For 16 years now, Nkola Motata has been weaving through the South African justice system like a drunken judge through suburban streets in an expensive car, looking for a wall to come to a stop against.

The story has all the elements: There's the drunken lawyer who was caught time and again lying and cheating to get himself out of trouble yet was allowed to retire with full benefits. There's the process against him that was rigged in his favour time and again. There's the tribunal report of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) which found that Motata's drunkenness was a mitigating factor, even though the judge initially maintained that he had only drunk tea beforehand. There are the accusations that the k-word was used against Motata at the scene of the collision, but was later retracted after someone's reputation had already been damaged. There is the widely circulated video from which it was clear that the judge was far from sober. And last but not least, there are the questions about the role of Dali Mpofu, hands down South Africa's most irregular lawyer, and Mogoeng Mogoeng as chief judge at the time.

Now the whole thing has also found a wall to stop against. The JSC has wisely decided not to challenge a decision by the Supreme Court of Appeal that Motata is guilty of gross misconduct, meaning a process can now begin that will make him the first judge in South African history to be impeached by Parliament, after which he can be stripped of his title and benefits such as his lifetime pension.

News24's Karyn Maughan reported yesterday that Chief Justice Raymond Zondo will now write to the Speaker of the National Assembly to start this process. Unfortunately, everything then once again becomes a political process instead of the legal one that it was supposed to be from the beginning, but rarely really was.

The low point was when the JSC at the time ignored the worst of the tribunal's findings against Motata. These include that the judge was guilty of gross misconduct, that he should be charged for his abusive behavior towards Richard Baird, that Baird had not uttered the k-word, and that Motata deliberately chose a racially motivated strategy to get police officers on the scene on his side and alienate them from Baird.

SCA judge Nathan Ponnan said in his scathing ruling about Motata: “The public watched him conduct a dishonest defense during his trial and on appeal. They watched him dishonestly accuse Mr Baird of using the k-word, only to subsequently withdraw the accusation. They watched him lie under oath to the Tribunal about his level of intoxication, as the video of him slurring his words and stumbling went viral. His conduct is inimical to his office. For as long as he is entitled to be called ‘Judge Motata', the judiciary continues to be stained in the eyes of the public."

The question now is whether the required two-thirds of MPs will formally agree to this or allow yet again that political considerations count for more.

Wrong answers only...

♦ VWB ♦

BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION: Go to the bottom of this page to share your opinion. We look forward to hearing from you!