Fresh bid launched to have drunk driving judge impeached

Freedom Under Law (FUL) has launched a fresh legal bid to have retired judge and convicted drunk driver Nkola Motata impeached.

Motata crashed his car into the wall of a Hurlingham home while intoxicated in 2007.

In 2009, the South Gauteng High Court convicted him of driving under the influence and fined him R20,000. And in 2018, the Judicial Conduct Tribunal found him guilty of gross misconduct – for having made offensive remarks at the scene of the crash and for advancing a defence he knew was untrue, that he was not drunk, at his criminal trial – and recommended he be removed from office, saying: “The question to be asked is if Judge Motata is to retain the office of a judicial officer, would this negatively affect the public confidence in the justice system?”

But when Motata’s case came before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) – the body tasked with the hiring and firing of judges – the tribunal’s finding of ‘gross misconduct’ against him was replaced with one of ‘misconduct’ and he was allowed to hang on to his title and all the benefits that came with it – including a lifelong salary.

In FUL’s papers, which were filed in the South Gauteng High Court, the organisation’s Nicole Fritz, accused the JSC of having failed to hold Motata to account.

“Judge Motata drove his vehicle whilst intoxicated, resulting in damage to private property. After this, he made various remarks that were not merely gratuitous and offensive, but were racist and sexist. To make matters worse, he then defended his criminal conduct through lengthy proceedings, during which he knowingly advanced a defence that was factually and legally without basis,” she said.

“The JSC acquitted Judge Motata of gross misconduct without defining what constitutes gross misconduct … FUL submits that, once the proper standard of gross misconduct is defined, it is irrational to conclude on the facts of this case that Judge Motata’s conduct was anything other than gross misconduct. FUL further submits that the JSC reached its conclusions by ignoring pertinent facts and by misconstruing others. The JSC has breached its duty in permitting him to retain his office and title of judge.”

Fritz pointed to the standard of conduct required of a judge and said this was “largely uniform across many jurisdictions” and that there was “no reason why South Africa should adopt a more lenient standard,” adding that these requirements were applicable to retired judges too.

“Retired judges continue to enjoy both the prestige and the financial benefits concomitant with that high office and they cannot do so without remaining bound by the high standards of such office,” she said, “Critically, the public continues to see retired judges as representatives of the judicial arm of government.”

The JSC had failed to take into consideration the standard of conduct required of judges, Fritz charged.

“Indeed, there is no indication that the JSC engaged meaningfully in an analysis of the standards of conduct required of judges. Had the majority taken the standards of judicial conduct into consideration, I submit that it could not have reached the conclusion that it did.”

The case has not yet been allocated a date for hearing.

In the meantime, though, Richard Baird – whose wall Motata drove into on that fateful morning – has laid into the JSC and labelled its findings “a complete and absolute injustice.”

He pointed to the commission having relied on some evidence “that doesn’t exist” and having ignored other “critical evidence.”

Baird accused the JSC of having been biased and described its findings as “convoluted” and “made up in order to justify the outcome they wanted.”

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.