The day former PS Mhlauli tasted freedom

ISAIAH MOREWAGAE
Staff Writer | Friday May 22, 2009 00:00

 

On the day of the case, Mhlauli alighted from a white luxurious sedan, dressed in a grey-white striped suit, to hear judgement on his appeal against the 2007 conviction and sentence on corruption and abuse of office charge. He entered Courtroom 7 and sat patiently besides his legal representative Reuben Lekorwe while Justice Key Dingake was still deliberating on the other matters before him.

When his case was called, Mhlauli sprang up and entered the dock to listen to Dingake reading his judgement. In the middle of the judgement, Dingake retreated to his chambers leaving the court room all to Mhlauli's family, friends and a handful of journalists who attended the court session. He eventually alighted from his chambers about 30 minutes later and continued reading his judgement. When the judge announced his freedom, Mhlauli hurried out of the courtroom to his stationery white sedan and quenched the thirst with what looked like a soft drink from a distance.

In a desperate attempt to avoid the media, Mhlauli disappeared in the car he came in, as some journalists approached him for an interview. Even his family members did not want anything to do with the media as they did not want to comment on what had just happened in court.

The former permanent secretary in the then Ministry of Local government, Lands and Housing was convicted of corruption and abuse of office but was acquitted of the charges after High Court reversed a lower court's decision.

Mhlauli's legal team contended that the court that convicted and sentenced Mhlauli erred and misdirected itself in finding him guilty.

The decision penned by Justice Dingake, set aside a December 2007 Village Magistrate Court ruling that found Mhlauli guilty of two counts of abuse of office and one count of giving false information to the Commissioner of Oaths. The trial court imposed a total of nine years in prison for both counts. On each of the counts, the magistrate gave the maximum sentence of two years for both charges of abuse of office, and seven years for giving false information to a Commissioner of Oaths. However, the sentences were to run concurrently which meant Mhlauli was to serve a seven year jail term.

In his judgement, Dingake lamented that the trial magistrate did not explicitly express his mind to the requirement that 'for him to return a guilty verdict, he must be satisfied that Mhlauli's explanation was false beyond reasonable doubt.'

In legal lingua, Dingake said: 'The learned magistrate in an otherwise closely reasoned judgement, laced with sparks of brilliance and in-depth appreciation of the law, allowed himself at critical junctures, to take off his eyes from the balls, and inconsequently denied himself the opportunity to properly analyse the yawning gaps in the state case.'

He added that the state counsel was clearly caught between a rock and a hard place in his attempt to persuade the court that the trial magistrate was alive to the corollary rule.

Dingake found no basis for the trial magistrate to accept as correct the evidence of Milidzani Majingo to the effect that Kadimo Oremeng's application was better than that of Eddie Norman. 'There is no sufficient evidence on record to support such conclusion', Dingake said. He asserted that a bald statement to the effect that Oremeng's application was superior cannot be a sufficient basis find that was indeed so', Dingake said.

'In my mind', Dingake said, 'Oremeng had no right to be allocated state land, 'the source' of this 'right' has not be demonstrated by any evidence led before the trial court or by reference to any law.'

He dismissed as 'insufficient evidence' a suggestion that in his decision to recommend allocation of land to Norman, Mhlauli was influenced by self-interest and irrelevant consideration.

'Having regard to the totality of evidence given before the trial court that Mhlauli in allocating land to Norman, considered that Oremeng had been allocated land through his company at Block 5 and other reasons mentioned in April 8 1998, appears to me that there would be no basis to conclude that Mhlauli abused his office or acted arbitrarily,' Dingake said.

Dingake concluded that Mhlauli appears to have been swayed by the consideration that Oremeng would have benefited twice had he been allocated land at Game City. 'I do not see how this consideration of fairness, can be dismissed off-hand as so grossly unreasonable as to amount to arbitrariness contemplated by the offence-creating section. In my considered view, arbitrariness connotes proceedings on the basis of no reason or where the reason advanced is so absurd that it in effect amounts to no reason,' Dingake said.