Car-flagging interference costs cop job
Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday November 15, 2022 06:00
The ex-officer, Tshoganetso Ketshabang who before his dismissal from the police force held the rank of Sub Inspector had worked for 23 years as a police officer.
According to court papers, on May 4, 2016, he was subjected to disciplinary hearing proceedings before the board and charged with a single count of falsehood contrary to the Police Act.
Particulars of the offence are that the former officer had on or about December 1, 2015, being an officer authorised to flag and unflag motor vehicles knowingly, provided false information that one Joshua David who was an owner of a Toyota Fortuner charged with three road traffic offences had paid the fines imposed on him in respect of the said road traffic offences thereby unflagging and indicating on the system the fictitious official receipt numbers.
“On August 23, 2017, the Police Board presiding over his matter found him guilty and recommended that his sentence be that of reduction of rank from Sub Inspector to Sergeant. The sentence was subject to review and confirmation by the Reviewing Authority,” reads the papers.
However, following receipt of the recommendation from the board, the Reviewing Authority instead dismissed him from the police service.
As a result, Ketshabang instituted review proceedings of which the notice of motion to review and set aside the decision to terminate his employment was filed on August 1, 2018.
In his papers, he indicated that he had pleaded guilty to the offence but he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and convicted on August 23, 2017.
Meanwhile having tried numerous times with the board for his review of his dismissal and the High Court and failed, he launched another fight with the Court of Appeal (CoA).
The CoA subsequently had to determine whether the review application at the High Court was brought within the time frame allowed in terms of the rules of the court. In the end, Chief Justice Rannowane said the High Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the review application as it was filed out of time without leave.
“The notice of motion to review the decision of the Police Council was filed on August 1, 2018, whilst the decision to dismiss him was made on March 8, 2018. The appellant was therefore outside the four months frame set by the Rules of Court,” said the judge.
Chief Justice explained that the former officer was therefore obliged to apply for leave to bring the review application out of time.
He pointed out that the fact the decision to dismiss him was made in March would have supported any pleadings that he had a good cause for delay.
“The period of four months calculated from March 8 ends on July 8, 2018. I accept that the communication of the decision dismissing him was delayed but that does not change the fact of the rules required for the review application to be filed within specified time frames,” Rannowane said.