Mbabane – Suspended Municipal Council of Mbabane spokesperson Lucky Tsabedze has expressed shock over his disciplinary charges.
He claims that his supervisor never warned him or addressed the underlying issues beforehand. These claims are contained in a founding affidavit filed in court, the merits of which are yet to be contested. Tsabedze, an Information and Public Relations Officer (IPRO) employed by the Municipal Council of Mbabane, made the allegations in support of an urgent application seeking to stop his disciplinary hearing.
In the affidavit, Tsabedze states that his employment contract with the council remains in force. He is challenging a ruling delivered on August 14, 2026, by Nsindiso Thwala, who chairs his disciplinary hearing and dismissed preliminary objections he had raised against the proceedings.
Tsabedze is asking the Industrial Court to review and set aside the ruling and stay the disciplinary hearing pending the final determination of his application. Alternatively, he wants the charges against him quashed and set aside.
According to the affidavit, Tsabedze was served with a suspension letter on June 17, 2026, at about 4:45pm. He says this happened without a pre-suspension hearing or an explanation of what had triggered the suspension. Five days later, on June 22, he was served with a charge sheet and notice to attend a disciplinary hearing scheduled for July 1 at the council’s premises.
Tsabedze states that when he received the charges, it was the first time he became aware of the issues for which he was being disciplined because he had not known why he had been suspended.
The filed papers state that the charges are based on alleged insubordination, failure to carry out his duties and negligence.
According to his affidavit, Tsabedze had never previously been called by his immediate supervisor to be warned about, or have concerns raised with him regarding, the manner in which he performed his duties. “This is why the whole process came as a shock to me as there were no incidents prior that I suspected would trigger such a process against me,” he states in the affidavit. The veracity of these allegations is still to be tested in court. The Municipal Council of Mbabane is yet to file answering papers. Tsabedze is represented by Mxolisi Dlamini of Dynasty Inc. Attorneys.
Tsabedze appeared before the disciplinary hearing on July 1 with his representative. He applied for external representation, saying the charges were serious and that his colleagues were not comfortable representing him because they feared victimisation. The chairperson postponed the matter to July 3 after the employer’s representative sought time to obtain instructions on the request.
When the matter resumed, Tsabedze says the council had appointed a senior attorney, Musa Sibandze, to prosecute the disciplinary case on its behalf. His request for external legal representation was then granted and dates were set for the continuation of the hearing.
At the next hearing, Tsabedze raised preliminary objections, challenging the disciplinary process on the basis of the council’s Staff Standing Orders.
His first objection was that the council had failed to comply with Clause 3.02, which required disciplinary action to be taken immediately. He argued that charges two, three, four and five were time barred and should, therefore, be set aside.
His second objection concerned Clause 3.03, which he said required a thorough investigation to be conducted and statements containing full details of the alleged misconduct to be prepared before disciplinary action was taken. Tsabedze argued that the council had failed to comply with that provision and that the disciplinary proceedings should consequently be set aside. The council, through its initiator, opposed the objections.
According to Tsabedze’s affidavit, the council argued that although undue delay in instituting disciplinary action could result in procedural unfairness or amount to a waiver of the employer’s right to discipline an employee, this was not a case of waiver and the charges were not time-barred.
The council further argued that the alleged misconduct was successive and ongoing, and had been monitored by the chief executive officer (CEO) before charges were eventually brought.
On the investigation issue, the council argued that Tsabedze had misinterpreted Clause 3.03(a), saying the provision did not require an investigation report to be filed before an employee was charged. Thwala subsequently dismissed Tsabedze’s preliminary objections in a written ruling dated August 14.
In the ruling, as quoted in Tsabedze’s affidavit, Thwala found that Clause 3.02 was more relaxed and permissive than provisions considered in previous cases cited during the hearing.
He also distinguished between strictly time-barred matters and cases involving unreasonable delay that could lead to a conclusion that an employer had waived its right to discipline an employee.
On the investigation issue, Thwala reportedly found that there was no investigation report produced by the council when it decided to prefer charges against Tsabedze.
The explanation given was that the CEO had monitored what was described as declining performance, raised the issue with the director strategy and operations, who then engaged the director corporate affairs. The two directors reportedly considered the CEO’s concerns and concluded that Tsabedze had a case to answer. The process also involved obtaining a legal opinion, which Thwala found was legally privileged and could not be furnished to Tsabedze.
The chairperson stated that an employee had a right to be informed timeously and in detail of the charges against them to enable them to prepare a defence. This included being furnished with the documentary and other evidence that the employer intended to rely on in proving the charges. However, Thwala found that the circumstances were distinguishable from cases where an investigation report existed because, in this matter, there was no investigation report.
Tsabedze now argues that the chairperson misinterpreted the Staff Standing Orders by adopting what he describes in his affidavit as a relaxed approach to clauses 3.02 and 3.03(a). He maintains that Clause 3.02 is mandatory and requires disciplinary action to be taken immediately. He disputes the council’s position that the alleged misconduct dating back to August 2025 constituted continuing offences.
Tsabedze is asking the Industrial Court to intervene before the disciplinary hearing is completed. He argues that the hearing should be stayed because dates had already been set for its continuation in September. He states that he has a right to a fair disciplinary process conducted in accordance with the council’s Staff Standing Orders.
He further argues that allowing the hearing to continue could result in him being found guilty and dismissed before the Industrial Court determines his challenge.
The application is being brought on an urgent basis. He is asking the court to stay the disciplinary hearing, review and set aside Thwala’s August 14 ruling, and replace it with an order declaring the disciplinary proceedings contrary to clauses 3.02 and 3.03(a) of the council’s Staff Standing Orders. The matter remains pending in court.
Leave a comment