2 MPS WANT CROWN’S SA ADVOCATE REMOVED

MBABANE – MPs Mduduzi Bacede Mabuza and Mthandeni Dube now want the Law Society to facilitate the removal of South African Advocate Gareth Leppan from prosecuting in their matter.

The two incarcerated Members of Parliament (MPs) have since written to the Law Society of Swaziland (LSS) wherein they raised a number of concerns about Advocate Leppan. “We fail to understand how the same advocate who wrote a memorandum to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) stating that they have no case against us, now works on prosecuting the same case.  To us this is pure unethical and lacks integrity. As a matter of fact, is should even be criminal,” wrote the MPs. In the letter titled ‘Unethical admission of Advocate Gareth Leppan’, they informed the LSS that they brought the matter to it as a lawful institution that deals with the admission of lawyers and advocates who could practise law in the courts of Eswatini.

Memorandum

In their three-page letter, they highlighted that in a memorandum directed to the DPP dated August 10, 2020, Advocate Leppan stated that “having perused available material thus far, it is apparent that there is no source of evidence that proves the case against one or more of the suspects.” “We are honourable MPs who have little knowledge of the law, but we do from time to time seek clarity from our legal team and others. From where we stand, we understand that for Advocate Leppan to be able to practise in Eswatini, on this case in particular, he must have moved a petition which the Law Society of Swaziland must have not objected to,” wrote the MPs.

They informed the Law Society that in their opinion, the advocate had been unethically and unlawfully admitted. Dube and Mabuza said as members of the august House, they worked and believed ethics were important and played an integral part when one executed his or her own duties. “We therefore write to seek an inquest by the Law Society of Swaziland in this matter. We are further making means to deliver a similar letter to the Pietermaritzburg Society of Advocates in the Republic of South Africa for an investigation of this matter,” reads part of the letter by the incarcerated legislators.

Mabuza and Dube said they strongly believed that the admission of Advocate Leppan to practise as an advocate in the kingdom should be terminated.  They stated that ‘Eswatini cannot be a banana country where people practise merely because they are paid big cheques. They told the Law Society that they believed this would result in bad precedents in the country, which they believed was bad law.

Context

“We would like to put it on record that the case of the State against us is based on context we shared in Parliament and advocated for in public, we are in prison today because of it,” wrote Mabuza and Dube. They highlighted that part of Advocate’s Leppan’s memorandum to the DPP reads as follows: “It would appear that this unrest has its roots in comments and/or speeches made by one or more of the suspects in Parliament, relating to Section 67 of the Constitution.”

According to the two MPs, this gave them a clear understanding that the Crown was deliberately ousting Parliament Privilege, knowing very well that they raised the issues brought before court inside Parliament. “Moreover, what we pick in the memorandum is that the State first arrested us, and then started investigating thereafter. Please recall that we were arrested on July 25, 2021, then the director of public prosecutions allegedly investigated in August, alleged the duo. They highlighted that they had already been charged and the advocate in his memorandum to the DPP referred to the indictment as ‘obviously only a working tool at this stage.’ Annexed to their letter to the LSS, is the memorandum which Advocate Leppan wrote to the DPP.

The LSS, through a letter written by its Secretary General, Charity Simelane, informed the MPs that they received their correspondence. “Please be advised that we are in the process of consulting the relevant attorneys seized with your matter for further information on the case. We shall then revert,” reads part of the reply. In the memorandum dated August 10, 2021, the advocate said it would appear that the evidence allegedly implicating Mabuza and Dube lied practically in public statements.

He highlighted that to that end, he was provided with the translated statements made by the duo, together with various statements describing the events that took place over the period of June 5- June 26, 2021. Advocate Leppan further wrote that, a timeline in this matter would be of obvious vital importance, setting out all the actions and/or words of the suspects, together with the incidents of unrest, spanning the period of time in question. He further pointed out to the DPP that the dates and the events that allegedly took place would need to be unpacked in greater detail for purposes of analysis and comparison. Advocate Leppan stated that the task for successful prosecution in this matter would be the ability to link the two ends of the timelines.

Evidence

“Having perused the available material thus far, it is apparent that there is no one source of evidence that proves the case against one or more of the suspects, but rather presents a mosaic, which at this stage, does not contain all the required pieces and it is thus to these missing pieces, that this memorandum is directed,” reads part of the memorandum that was written by Advocate Leppan. He went on to point out that, a perusal of the translated statements of Mabuza and Dube revealed that the contents thereof were not necessarily consistent with the affidavits deposed to by certain persons who were present when the  speeches were made.

Advocate Leppan said he was also provided with a memory stick containing numerous voice notes, which would need to be translated and reduced to writing for purposes of identification and analysis. “If some of the voice notes are attributed, directly or indirectly, to one or more of the suspects, then we may need to investigate the possibility of voice identification evidence,” said the advocate. It was further his opinion that, the principle of common purpose would undoubtedly come into play in the matter and once all evidence was at hand would have to be considered. “It would appear that this unrest has its roots comments and/ or speeches made by one or more of the suspects in Parliament, relating to Section 67 of the Constitution. While not specifically tabled as a motion, it nonetheless was discussed and Hansard should approach to provide a written version,” advised Advocate Leppan.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: