Rival BONU committees clash in court
Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday April 19, 2016 15:57
The Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the BONU stands accused of refusing to vacant their seats and holding onto power unlawfully as their term has long expired.
The CEC members who are referred in court papers as outgoing, faced off in the bitter legal battle against the incoming committee following a decision to dissolve the Union’s Annual General Conference (AGC) indefinitely.
On Friday, the two parties restricted themselves to arguments on the urgency of the matter.
The incoming members, led by the new president Obonolo Rahube, brought the urgent application seeking an order that will force the outgoing committee to hand the secretariat to BONU and to the new committee immediately.
Through their attorney, Kgosiitsile Ngakaagae, the new committee members submitted that the matter should be dealt with urgently because the outgoing committee’s refusal to hand over the secretariat was unlawful as their three year tenure had already elapsed.
Their main argument is that the decision of the CEC of March 22, 2016 to dissolve the elective conference that was due to be held, was unlawful because there was also already a consent order for the elective conference to be held.
“The decision of the committee to dissolve the conference constituted a legally inexcusable violation of the consent order,” Ngakaagae said.
He argued that as agreed through a consent order that was issued by High Court judge, Tshepo Motswagole in 2015 to the effect that the matter be disposed of urgently, it should proceed on that manner.
He submitted that the old committee had breached the consent order and the constitution governing the union, which “clearly stated that the committee was to have only three years in office”.
He said despite the judge’s order the old committee had postponed the conference indefinitely giving themselves a definite extension in office.
“How convenient that at the time of their removal from office they found reasons to postpone the conference and said it was for security reasons while refusing to take any comments or suggestions,” he argued.
For their part, lawyers for the respondents who include the union and the outgoing president Tebogo Tshenyego, said the consent order that was referred to by the new committee had nothing to do with the matter as it was given to different people who were before court at that time.
Their respondents attorney, Jones Moitshepi submitted that the matter was not urgent as the applicants could be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due cause.
He argued that the applicants claimed to have known that the outgoing committee was unlawfully holding office since October 2015 and yet it took them five months to bring the proceedings before court.
Moitshepi said the applicants then sought to claim urgency on speculation and suspicion which are untenable.
He argued that on the contrary the respondents gave effect to the consent order by convening the elective conference.
“It was the applicants who made it impossible to continue with the conference for personal gain and they unlawfully seized office in the executive office. They did that by acting in a manner that was rowdy and they deliberately frustrated compliance with the order,” he said.
He said unlike the incoming committee, the outgoing one always acted in the best interests of the union and its members and did not take the law into their own hands.
Moitshepi said the committee had no intention of postponing the conference or even extending their term of office as alleged by the applicants and that they refused to be recalled simply on the basis that it was unprocedurally snuck onto the agenda.
Judge Ketlogetswe ruled the matter as urgent and ordered the parties to file their papers within reasonable time.
The case is set for arguments on Thursday.