POLICE MUST PROBE HIGH COURT MASTER’S OFFICE

May I first cite some verses that might assist whosoever is handling issues of the parentless and widows.

Exodus 22: 22-24 reads: “Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.”  The above verse is a stern warning.

You have been cordially warned today. In Psalms 68:5 and 146:9, the Psalmist describes God as the protector and upholder of widows. I am quoting this Isaiah 1:17 for Judge Majahenkhaba Dlamini-led Commission of Inquiry: “Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.”

This is in case the commission is not disbanded as pleaded by the Law Society of Swaziland. Exodus 22 verse 22 is also straight to the point: “You all not mistreat any widow or fatherless child.” There is a benefit for treating well widows and fatherless.

Portion

Deuteronomy 14:29 reads: “And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.” Then, let me talk.  Even if one was accustomed to mistreating people, how on earth would you stoop too low to rob a widow and why do you rob or frustrate an orphan? It’s morally unacceptable.

The office of the Master of the High Court is a very important office that represents Godly affairs. It is an office that is under the maximum supervision of God. Therefore, whosoever handles issues of orphans and widows must be careful of what he or she does with the estates. Never say I did not warn you. You have been warned.

The issues raised by the Law Society of Swaziland are very close to my heart. I have heard cases of estates that lost millions of Emalangeni under highly questionable circumstances. I was so depressed to see weeping orphans and widows being frustrated by public officers in gainful employment. I asked myself: “Why do I have to steal from the dead?”

Officers attached to the Master of the High Court are not the only ones who have access to the estates. There are attorneys who messed up with them as well.
Some judicial officers would have to account and be transparent to gain public trust.
In certain areas of the investigation, His Majesty the King, as an executive Head of State would have to intervene to prevent pockets of probable interference in the manner in which the investigation is being conducted.
However, there is an alternative way to investigate the activities of the Office of the Master of the High Court and associates. The Prime Minister, Russell Dlamini, must advise the acting National Commissioner of Police, Lydia Dlamini, to instruct, without failure and compromise, the Fraud and Theft Department of the Royal Eswatini Police Service to institute an investigation.
The prime minister is responsible for police affairs. In fact, he is the minister of police. Police can do a better job than any commission of inquiry.
Parliament and the judges who are presently collecting facts on the activities of the Master of the High Court cannot do a better job than the institution that was trained and equipped to investigate complex issues.  I know that members of the Royal Eswatini Police Service (REPS) are ready and determined to tell any implicated officer in the judicial service that their instituted investigation is lawful and that they also reserve the right to use other means to extract concealed information on the activities of the Office of the Master of the High Court.
During the time of Churchill Dlamini, as the Master of the High Court, there was a commission of inquiry after serious allegations were levelled against this office.
I pointed to the fact some time ago, that commissions of inquiry are a waste of funds in Eswatini. This is due to the fact that their reports are not implemented. They are gathering dust in the public offices.  There is a general feeling that the judges who are presently investigating the issue are not doing any quality service to the taxpayer.
Section 189 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland (Eswatini) provides that the Royal Swaziland Police Service shall be responsible for peace, prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension of offenders.
If there is prima facie evidence or circumstantial evidence that there are certain offenders within the judiciary or elsewhere, I don’t understand why the case has not been referred to the police.
If need be, police can enter a judge’s residence and arrest him. They have the power to arrest even the prime minister. The law enforcers can apprehend their own national commissioner.
It is stated in Section 189 (2) that the police service shall have and exercise other powers and functions as may be prescribed.
The people who are appearing before the Commission of Inquiry being chaired by Judge Majahenkhaba Dlamini should also approach the police for assistance. Where there is an element of crime, do not wait for a commission’s intervention. Just go straight to the nearest Mbabane Police Station.
I call for integrity in the police service. As police are responsible for peace in terms of the Constitution, they have to act swiftly by advising people with circumstantial evidence to meet the desk officers.
exercise
If a police investigation can be instituted and be allowed to exercise its functions independently and transparently, the public, for sure, could be surprised at seeing prominent figures being ushered to the gaol by officers of His Majesty’s Correctional Services.
I am aware that Section 62 (1) of the Constitution states that the independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State.
The question is: “how far does independence go in an administrative issue?”
Would a judge say a police officer interferes with the independence of the judiciary if he arrests him for stealing the fines?
 Section 62 (1) reads: “the independence of the judiciary as enshrined in this Constitution or any other law shall be guaranteed by the State. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.”
From a layman’s point of view, it looks like this constitutional independence has to do with adjudication of cases.
This is because subsection (2) reads: “the judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”  
Let us underline subsection (3) to critique the independence that the judiciary has, and I am analysing this constitutional provision from a layman’s point of view as indicated above.
It reads: “The Judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue is within its competence as defined by law.”
Underline ‘judicial nature’.  Then, ask yourself this question: “Is the commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Judge Majahenkhaba Dlamini probing an issue of a judicial nature or issue of an administrative nature?”
One would find that 99.9 per cent of their terms of references speak to an issue of an administrative nature.
Subsection (4) provides that there shall be no inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision. That illustrates my point to a greater extent that the independence of the judiciary is about the adjudication of cases.
The executive exercises, to a limited extent, some authority over the judiciary. It is the executive that sets up the judiciary. The judicial officers are appointed by the executive.
budget
It is also the prerogative of the executive to prepare and pass the budget of the judiciary.
It is the executive that legitimises the recruitment of the persons selected for judicial office to ensure that they are individuals of integrity and ability with appropriate training and qualifications.
The executive reserves the right not to appoint individuals to judicial office.
I, therefore, urge the Chief Justice, Bheki Maphalala, as the Law Society of Swaziland has duly done, to disband the commission to preserve the integrity and purity of the judiciary.
Section 240 of the Constitution refers to conflict of interest. The section provides that a person who holds an office referred to Section 241 (2) shall not:
Assume a position where personal interest conflicts or is likely to conflict with the performance of functions of office;
Engage in conduct that is likely to compromise the honesty, impartiality and integrity of that officer;
likely to lead to corruption in public affairs;
or which is detrimental to the public good or welfare or good governance.  
Section 241 (2) (k) of the Constitution applies to the ‘Justice of the Supreme Court of Judicature and all judicial officers’.
”Based on this premise, it is a considered view that the impartiality of the judges in an administrative matter involving the office of the Master of the High Court has been compromised.
Through His Majesty the King, the executive must act promptly to address the matter. While they are considering escalating the issue to the highest office, I advise the police to do what they know better – apprehending offenders.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: