Legal Practice Council administrator accused of corruption loses Labour Court bid

The Citizen

01-05-2025

Judge says disciplinary hearing against Zandile Madonsela, accused of colluding with attorneys, can go ahead
An employee of the Legal Practice Council (LPC), accused of being involved in an 'elaborate and corrupt scheme' with attorneys, has failed in her bid to stop disciplinary proceedings against her.
Johannesburg Labour Court Judge Edwin Tlhotlhalemaje, in a recent ruling, said it was clear that Zandile Madonsela was doing everything possible to frustrate the disciplinary process.
She is accused of working with attorneys to falsify their audits and provide them with Fidelity Fund certificates and Certificates of Good Standing.
Judge Tlhotlhalemaje said courts could only intervene in incomplete disciplinary proceedings in the most exceptional cases and dismissed her urgent application, ordering Madonsela to pay the LPC's costs.
ALSO READ: Lawyers who steal: R1.4bn trust fund theft ignored
Madonsela had been employed by the LPC in its Gauteng offices as an administrator in the Risk and Assessment Department since 2019.
After receiving an anonymous tip-off, the LPC began an internal investigation which resulted in disciplinary proceedings against Madonsela and others who were accused of colluding with attorneys and taking money in exchange for falsifying audits and issuing the certificates.
Madonsela was charged with fraud and falsifying documents used in the 'corrupt scheme' with attorneys.
Before pleading to the charges, Madonsela launched urgent court proceedings seeking to have the disciplinary proceedings declared unlawful and a breach of her employment contract.
She also argued that the LPC was in breach of a settlement agreement in terms of which it had been agreed that the disciplinary process against her would be terminated in exchange for her providing information to assist with the ongoing investigation.
ALSO READ: 'They should be embarrassed': Mpofu slams charges as disciplinary hearing postponed
Referring to the history of the matter, Judge Tlhotlhalemaje said the disciplinary hearing had been stalled several times with Madonsela's legal representatives demanding to see further documents, and then a claim that she was sick.
Her legal representatives then told the LPC that she had evidence that implicated other employees involved in the scheme.
The LPC said if she provided credible information, not already within the LPC's possession or knowledge, the disciplinary hearing would still proceed against her but should she be found guilty, the LPC would ask for a lesser sanction than dismissal.
Judge Tlhotlhalemaje said it was not disputed that even though Madonsela had been suspended, she had been granted access to her office and her computer and emails to print the information she had promised.
However, according to the LPC, this information was of no value to its investigation and Madonsela was informed that the hearing would proceed in early April 2025.
In response, Madonsela's legal representatives then cast aspersions on the impartiality of the chairperson and said the hearing should be permanently stayed.
When the LPC refused this request, she launched the urgent application in the labour court.
Judge Tlhotlhalemaje agreed with the LPC that the urgency was self-created and she had only approached the court 'when the penny dropped' that the disciplinary hearing was going to proceed.
He said in light of this, he could strike the matter off the roll. However, he felt compelled to 'dispose of it finally', to prevent it being re-enrolled on the ordinary roll, unnecessarily.
He said an 'extremely high threshold' had been set for a court's intervention in ongoing disciplinary hearings.
Read the judgment here.
'The rationale behind this stringent approach is that the court should respect employers' prerogative to institute disciplinary proceedings and should be wary of unwarranted intrusion.
'It has been repeatedly stated that this court should not be regarded as the first port of call and the court must equally guard against the abuse of its own processes by employees whose primary objectives are not noble but merely intended to frustrate internal disciplinary processes in order to escape from having to answer to allegations of serious misconduct,' Judge Tlhotlhalemaje said.
He said the grounds raised by Madonsela were not exceptional and were 'utter red herrings'.
ALSO READ: More than 100 legal practitioners struck off the roll
He said the suggestion that the LPC was in breach of a settlement agreement was 'ludicrous'. The LPC director had refused to sanction the agreement because the information Madonsela had provided was of no value.
'The idea that there was an intention to terminate the disciplinary hearing is a figment of (Madonsela's) imagination. The proceedings were merely suspended.'
Judge Tlhotlhalemaje said Madonsela did not have a right not to be subjected to an internal disciplinary hearing, especially given the gravity of the allegations against her and the implications, to the extent that the charges are proven, for the integrity and reputation of the LPC and the legal profession.
Regarding the issue of costs, the judge said while Madonsela claimed to be 'a simple administrator', she had been legally assisted from the start by a team including a senior counsel, which pointed to the fact that she could afford to pay costs.
'The fact remains that this application, which was brought on an extremely urgent basis, was ill-considered and misconceived, causing the LPC costs and inconvenience,' he said, dismissing the urgent application with costs.
This article was republished from GroundUp under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here.
NOW READ: Police can't say why they let an alleged rapist off the hook