‘If I perish, I perish!’ – former GP Hawks boss Mokotedi ready for a fight

Having been stymied in its effort to discipline a controversial colleague accused of several issues, the police are now going after the person who was supposed to initiate a disciplinary hearing against said officer – former Gauteng Hawks boss Major General Prince Mokotedi.

“Frankly, I am tired. These ubiquitous neo-colonial forces who masquerade as ‘fishers of corrupt men’ are very powerful, and have been chasing me for years, and this has strained me financially, emotionally and physically,” Mokotedi told The Citizen.

“[These] flimsy charges against me were the worst misconduct they could muster and threw at me and made them to stick. I believe this too shall pass! A General does not surrender! If I perish, I perish!”

According to the disciplinary findings between the police and Mokotedi following Wednesdays hearing, Mokotedi, who represented himself, was found guilty on two of three counts of misconduct.

The charges relate to former Boksburg police station commander Colonel Woolganathan Govender, who had a string of complaints against him and was facing a disciplinary hearing.

Govender was facing 21 charges of “serious misconduct” which included allegations of having collected rental from a block of flats; kidnapping; extortion and involving himself in a Microlending Services, among other charges.

He made representations to the panel which would run his hearing shortly after it began in October 2015.

However, a legal opinion obtained by the police recommended the disciplinary hearing proceed, but before it could, Govender was transferred to Hawks and began working under Mokotedi.

Lieutenant General Lineo Ntshiea (Divisional Commissioner: Human Resource Management) was notified about the new wrinkle and according to Wednesday’s finding, concluded the allegations levelled against Govender were “serious and warranted a disciplinary hearing”.

Netshia then issued a “directive” the hearing against Govender should go ahead.

“Despite the directive that the allegations against Govender were serious and warranted a disciplinary hearing, Mokotedi proceeded to give Govender a verbal warning for bringing the SAPS into disrepute,” the chairperson of Mokotedi’s hearing, Advocate Sumayya Tilly wrote.

“This was specifically for [the] reason that the complainants had attended the SAPS workplace and demanded the return of their vehicles taken by Govender, which had caused embarrassment to the SAPS.”

Tilly wrote Mokotedi “felt that as a Supervisor to Govender he had to look into the allegations and evaluate the seriousness of same, with a view to determine whether or not to discipline Govender and/or subject him to a disciplinary hearing”.

According to her, this was what Mokotedi testified he did.

Mokotedi apparently contacted the Department of Public Service and Administration which allegedly “confirmed that receiving rental was not remunerative work”.

He also concluded Govender’s actions of lending money did not fall within the framework of the National Credit Act, and the kidnapping allegations against Govender were unfounded, in part due to there being no kidnapping.

“I have considered Mokotedi’s defence and in my view it stands to be rejected. The directive was clear and unambiguous in its terms,” Tilly found.

Mokotedi’s lawyer, Mpho Molefe, said Mokotedi intended “exhausting all the internal remedies available in order to overturn the findings which are unfair, baseless and hopelessly unjust”.

Molefe said the chairperson dismissed the fact that the employer (DPCI) knew about tMokotedi’s decision already in April 2016,  “but the charges are brought against him four years later in 2020, and a few weeks after our client came back from work after a lengthy hospitalisation and sick leave”.

“We will challenge the merits of the case as well. The constitution is very clear, no member of the security forces is obliged to carry out an unlawful order,” Moilefe said.

“It is ironic that one of the witnesses faces serious corruption allegations and her defence is that she followed orders.”