Days after City of Johannesburg‘s Ombudsman, Advocate Sdu Gumede, resigned, the Labour Appeals Court refused the City’s petition to set aside the ruling that his suspension last year was unlawful.
But since Gumede had already resigned, this does not mean he will have his job back, which he has been fighting for since May last year. Gumede said he ‘literally ran out of money to continue fighting’.
According to his attorney Jayson Kent from Cowan-Harper Attorneys, who has been representing Gumede in the matter, said the latest ruling meant that the suspension has finally been set aside, but that the disciplinary hearing would still have continued.
“It is difficult for an individual to litigate against any organisation or business the size of the City of Johannesburg. The City has limitless funds available but often an individual does not,” Kent said.
Asked about Gumede’s innocence, Kent said he does not think that the advocate would have gotten so far if his legal representatives were not confident of his innocence relating to what he was accused of.
Sociologist Dr Liela Groenewald expressed her concern about the matter. She said that it raises a red flag when an ombudsman is being investigated.
“At the end of the day, which interests were protected by preventing the ombudsman from doing his job for so many months?”
Groenewald also said that she believes Gumede could have had a case of constructive dismissal if the legal process had not been dragged out for so long and that he still had the resources to continue.
The legal battle saw many twists and turns with Gumede’s taking the City to the Labour Court, who ruled against the City. Disciplinary hearings were postponed and the City’s original legal representation was removed. In a document obtained by the Randburg Sun, the firm advised the City not to suspend the ombudsman because the reasons for his suspension were not justified.
The document also mentions that the reference to alleged fraud committed by Gumede in the submission prepared for the council is ‘far-fetched and not supported by the allegations made against Mr Gumede’.
According to information contained in Gumede’s founding affidavit submitted to the Labour Court, the main charge which seems to be at the centre of his suspension is his failure to disclose his previous relationship with Yeo Technologies. This is the company that provided call centre services to the Office of the Ombudsman. Gumede, however, maintained that he had no conflict of interest.
Costs of the urgent application by Gumede and the application for leave to appeal by the City will now be claimed by the advocate.
The City, who has not been commenting on the matter because it was sub judice, was contacted for comment and the story will be updated once it is received. However, a report is expected to be tabled in council and communication to be delivered after that.
Also read:
Two Joburg officials suspended for alleged R800 000 theft
More delays in hearing of suspended Joburg ombudsman
Economic development top priority for the City
