D-day for disgraced former Hawks head Ntlemeza

Will disgraced Lieutenant-General Mthandazo Berning Ntlemeza walk into his former office at the Directorate of Priority Crime Investigation, complete his handover to new acting Hawks boss Lieutenant-General Yolisa Matakata and report to acting national police commissioner General Kgomotso Phahlane for reposting – or not?

This after Freedom under Law and the Helen Suzman Foundation had him removed from his post as head of the Hawks.

The question is being asked by many and not even the police service knows the answer.

“As you are well aware, this is a matter between him and the [new police] minister [Fikile Mbalula],” Hawks spokesperson Hangweni Mulaudzi said on Monday.

“Of course, everyone wants the current situation to be sorted out as soon as possible. It is, however, out of our hands,” he said.

“We are more concerned about fighting serious crime and we don’t want this to divert our mandate or attention.”

Ntlemeza has reportedly stated that only parliament may remove him.

In terms of the South African Police Act 68 of 1995, Section 17DA, he may have a point.

Very simply, it states it will take the adoption of a resolution by a minimum of two-thirds of the National Assembly to remove Ntlemeza from office.

Except, said Wits Law School professor James Grant, a court order trumps the police act.

On March 17, Ntlemeza’s application for leave to appeal a decision by a full bench of the North Gauteng High Court, which overturned his appointment, was rejected.

“So it’s not a case of firing someone or a case of seeing the courts forcing Mbalula to suspend Ntlemeza or do anything,” said Grant.

It was the decision to appoint Ntlemeza which was set aside and that meant Ntlemeza was no longer in the position, said Grant.

The court also declared Ntlemeza had no way out and the court order would remain effective, even if he appealed it.

Except, “the court” does not necessarily mean the North Gauteng High Court if Ntlemeza wanted to appeal it – which may give him a “very long shot”, said Grant.

“So, he has two [possible] approaches: he may try to use the approach that only parliament may dismiss him, which I think is fundamentally flawed because he wasn’t dismissed. If he intends to appeal further, he might try to argue that the court which should have the jurisdiction to suspend the order or not should be the appeal court, which in this case would be the Supreme Court of Appeals.”

Meanwhile, the Democratic Alliance said it was concerned by reports over the weekend that Ntlemeza was planning to ignore the law and go back to work today, as head of the Hawks.

“To do so would be to act with [apparent] impunity, just like [former SABC boss] Hlaudi Motsoeneng.”

The party called on Matakata to ensure that Ntlemeza was barred entry to the building, saying the important work of the Hawks could not be curtailed further by any unlawful actions by him.

READ MORE: 

//

For more news your way, follow The Citizen on Facebook and Twitter.