CJ CALLS MY WIFE DARLING, LOVEY ON WHATSAPP – DRIVER

MBABANE – “The CJ would send WhatsApp messages to my wife, calling her by names of endearment such as darling and lovey.”

These allegations were made by the government driver, who is involved in a domestic dispute with his wife, Tengetile Dlamini, who is part of the Chief Justice (CJ) Bheki Maphalala’s security detail. He alleged that CJ Bheki Maphalala had been the cause of his marital dispute with his wife and, therefore, was ostensibly not fit to exercise his powers in his matter.

Conflict

“We live apart from each other with my wife because of the constant conflict over the chief justice,” submitted the driver, Fezile Matsebula, who is stationed at the master of High Court offices, under the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. Matsebula averred that anything done by the CJ in his matter, having regard to his personal involvement in his affairs, would create a legitimate doubt about the independence and impartiality of the process. Matsebula, who is also a Zion priest, has filed an application at the High Court, where he is seeking an order interdicting the CJ from exercising any of his functions in respect of his (Matsebula) review application, including but not limited to, empaneling a judge to hear the review and allocation of a date for the review. He alleged that at some point, he took his wife’s phone after reading one of the messages and he called the CJ, telling him to stop calling his wife darling or lovey.

Matsebula said he asked the CJ what was going on and instead of responding, he (CJ) laughed at him and said: “Nika lomnikati welucingo lucingo,” meaning give the phone to its owner. He alleged that the CJ was constantly brought up in conversations in their home and the head of the Judiciary would now and again send flirty texts to his wife. These are allegations whose veracity is yet to be tested in court. Matsebula is currently serving a sentence of eight months imprisonment for contravening the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence (SODV) Act No.15 of 2018, after assaulting his wife with a pellet gun. The sentence was issued by Magistrate Xolile Nxumalo, after he pleaded guilty to the charge. The court afforded him an option of a fine of E1 000. The trial was held on August 15, 2023 wherein Matsebula was convicted. On August 24, 2025, Matsebula was served with papers from the High Court, calling upon him to show cause why the sentence should not be increased.

Relationship

In his latest application, Matsebula entreated the court to exclude the CJ from participating in the matter as he was allegedly the cause of the breakdown of the relationship between him (Matsebula) and his wife. He urged the court to issue an order directing the principal judge of the High Court or the most senior judge of the Supreme Court, to exercise the functions of the CJ in respect of the review. He averred that the entire process lacked independence and impartiality, because of the CJ’s involvement in the process. Respondents in the matter are the CJ, director of public prosecutions (DPP), Tengetile (wife) and the attorney general (AG). Matsebula submitted that he had been allegedly abused by his wife. He informed the court that, despite his complaints regarding the alleged relationship between his wife and the CJ, the former had persisted with same. “My wife has constantly told me that there is nothing I can do regarding the abuse and the relationship between her and the chief justice,” submitted Matsebula.

He alleged that his wife would tell him that this was because the CJ would intervene and ensure that he attained no relief from the police and the courts, because no one could sue him (CJ) in the country. The applicant said in respect of the incident which led to his charges and conviction, the wife allegedly came into his house in the middle of the night, forcefully broke into the house and car, where she caused damage. Matsebula claimed that he reported the matter to the police and no charges were preferred against his wife. These are allegations whose veracity is still to be tested in court and the respondents are yet to file their papers. “My wife warned me time and again that I will not be able to get any redress because the chief justice would intervene and protect her,” alleged  the applicant. He narrated that after the incident the wife said “ngitsintse CJ,” meaning what I did to my wife during the incident was as if I had done it to the CJ himself.

Jail

According to Matsebula, his wife told him that the CJ would not be happy about what he had done to her and he would lose his job and go to jail. The applicant submitted that his matter swiftly went to trial and he did not have access to a lawyer. He said he was subsequently convicted and was sentenced to eight months imprisonment with an option of a fine of E1 000. He said he paid the fine. “After sentencing, my wife told me that this matter was far from over and that with the CJ, they would appeal the decision and see to it that I receive a harsher sentence so that I lose my job and I am jailed,” alleged Matsebula. He claimed that a few days after the sentencing, his wife called him and told him that the CJ was not happy with the sentence he received and he would see to it that he received a harsher sentence. He alleged that his wife told him that there would be a review of the sentence by the magistrate and it would be increased.

Matsebula alleged that his wife told him that there would be an automatic review of the magistrate’s decision by the High Court. In the application, which he had filed in terms of Section 35 (1) of the Constitution, Matsebula is also praying for an order declaring the review proceedings against his sentence to be inconsistent with the right of a fair hearing enshrined in Section 21 of the Constitution. He also entreated the court to interdict the CJ from exercising any of his functions in respect of the review, including but not limited to empaneling a judge to hear the review. It was further his plea to the court that it should issue an order directing the principal judge of the High Court or the most senior judge of the Supreme Court, or any other judge of the High Court deemed fit, to exercise the function of the CJ in respect of the review.  The matter is still pending in court.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: