ESWATINI MED COMTEMPT COSTS MEMBERS E100 000

MBABANE – Members of the Eswatini Medical Aid Fund (Eswatini Med) will bear the cost of the fine that has been imposed on the fund by Judge Titus Mlangeni.

Yesterday, the High Court judge imposed a fine of E100 000 on Eswatini Med for contempt of court.

The Principal Officer of the fund, Peter ‘Samora’ Simelane, was not spared as he was sentenced to 60 days imprisonment for contempt of court.

Half of the sentence was suspended for a period of five years. Simelane was, however, given the option of a fine of E30 000 on the remainder of the sentence, expected to be paid from his own pocket.

The sentence follows arguments that were made on Friday in the matter between Eswatini Development and Savings Bank (EswatiniBank) against Eswatini Med and Simelane. EswatiniBank instituted contempt of court proceedings against Eswatini Med after the latter terminated the medical aid cover of 165 employees of the bank on Monday.

Termination

When termination was effected, EswatiniBank told the court that there was a court order interdicting the medical aid fund from proceeding to terminate the bank employees’ cover.

Arguments on the matter were made on Friday. Eswatini Med was represented by Sabela Dlamini, while Zweli Jele appeared for the bank.

After the arguments on Friday, Judge Mlangeni wanted Simelane to be present in court for the order that he was to issue.

Since Simelane was not present in court that day, Judge Mlangeni adjourned the matter for one hour in order for the former to be called and to come to court.

However, after the hour, the Eswatini Med’s legal representative told the court that he had not succeeded in reaching him by phone. It was then that Judge Mlangeni issued a warrant of arrest, directing the police to find him, arrest him and bring him to court.

He was eventually taken in by the police on Saturday and appeared before Judge Mlangeni at 4pm. Judge Mlangeni remanded the principal officer in custody until yesterday, when he made an appearance before the judge.

Yesterday, Judge Mlangeni found Eswatini Med and Simelane guilty of contempt of court. He called upon the parties to make submissions before the court issued the sentence. In the submissions, Eswatini Med and Simelane, according to their representative, relied on counsel for the position they took and the judge asked, ‘so you misled them’.

Dlamini, on behalf of Eswatini Med and Simelane, told the court that it was reliance on counsel and if it was misleading, counsel should take the blame.

“Moving on, the position taken by the respondents is that the order could not be carried out because it interdicted the respondents from terminating the medical aid cover, which had already been terminated,” said Dlamini.

Judge Mlangeni said, “I heard that argument and I don’t agree with it. There were attempts to frustrate attempts to serve the order.”

Dlamini told the court that the court order had been complied with. “They have purged their contempt,” said Dlamini. “We regret the circumstances that have occurred these past few days.” Jele, on behalf of the bank, said he had instructions not to make submissions before the sentence of the respondents. Judge Mlangeni went on to pronounce the sentence. He said the time had come for the courts to deal with matters of contempt of court decisively and effectively. Before meting out the sentence, the judge called the principal officer to the front. “The defiance of a court order is a potential recipe for lawlessness. It’s a potential recipe for disaster. The moment we tolerate contempt of court, we are taking this country down the drain. I’ll, therefore, mete out a fairly stern sentence on both of you respondents,” said the judge. After being sentenced, Simelane remained with plain-clothes officers in the court premises for some time and he was driven away in a police van.

It was the same motor vehicle by which he was brought to court with after 9am. The principal officer, even after being sentenced, remained composed and maintained his smile. Notably, Simelane spent the latter part of Saturday and Sunday in police custody.

Simelane, as the Chairman of the Premier League of Eswatini, missed the finals of the Ingwenyama Cup played on Sunday at Somhlolo National Stadium.

While Simelane was kept in custody, he had filed a notice of appeal against the arrest warrant issued by Judge Mlangeni.

Warrant

The notice of appeal was filed on the same day the warrant was issued. In the appeal, Simelane cited many alleged errors in law, misdirection and gross irregularities purportedly committed by Judge Mlangeni. At the time of filing of the notice of appeal on Friday, Simelane had still not been arrested.

Simelane’s notice of appeal contained seven key grounds, primarily focusing on the contention that Judge Mlangeni issued the arrest warrant without affording him a hearing, thereby violating his constitutional rights.

The first ground of appeal asserts that Judge Mlangeni ‘erred in law, misdirected himself and committed a gross irregularity in issuing a warrant of arrest against Simelane without affording him a hearing’.

Simelane argues that this action violated his fundamental right to a fair hearing as enshrined in Section 21 of the Constitution of Eswatini.

Sentiment

The second ground echoes this sentiment, stating that the learned judge ‘erred, misdirected himself and committed a gross irregularity by depriving his personal liberty without a hearing’.

The appeal emphasises that this contravenes Section 16 of the Constitution, which protects individuals from unlawful deprivation of personal liberty. Simelane maintains he was denied his freedom without any opportunity to be heard on the matter.

A further point of contention, outlined in the third ground of appeal, is that Judge Mlangeni ‘erred in law, misdirected himself and committed an irregularity by issuing a warrant of arrest in civil proceedings against Eswatini Med even though this warrant of arrest had not been applied for’.

This suggests that the order for Simelane’s arrest was made without a formal request from the opposing party in the civil case. Notably, the court issued the warrant in order for him to be present in court when the judge issued orders after hearing the contempt of court proceedings.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: