UB union officials fight in court
Goitsemodimo Kaelo | Friday May 17, 2019 12:47
In the matter, the union leadership wanted chairperson aspirant Motsomi Ndala Marobela to be barred from convening an extra-ordinary congress of the Union.
Unknown for internal strife over the years, UBASSSU has recently seen peace elude the entity. Divisions and infighting for control of the union have rocked the union resulting a court battle.
The squabble imaged early this year when the union held an unsuccessful Biennial Congress on March 2019. However, the elections could not be held, as there was an objection to whether Marobela was eligible to contest for the position of chairperson of the Union.
Allegations are that he had not made prior communication to the Secretary General as required by the Constitution, indicating his preference to contest as Chairperson and the Committee felt it was late for him to seek nomination for a different position.
It is said Marobela and Keoneng Magocha issued a notice to the membership and fraternal organisations of the Union, inviting them to an Extra-Ordinary Congress scheduled for April 16, whose purpose was also to elect a new committee. The Union leadership through a temporary interdict granted by justice Komboni then challenged the move.
On Tuesday, when lawyers for the union factions slugged it out in court, attorney Obonye Jonas representing the Union said the court should confirm the Rule nisi order and restrain Marobela or any other person or structure, other than the Executive Committee of the Union from convening the purported extra-ordinary general congress.
Jonas further said the two respondents; Marobela and Magocha have no mandate to convene a congress because there is a Committee in place to do that.
Instead of convening a congress, he said instead, the respondents should have brought an application compelling the union leadership to hold elections.
“There is a committee in place restored by the Electoral Officer. The respondents are failing to point to any clause in the Constitution, which the Electoral officer breached when she restored the committee. Her actions would not be said to be illegal,” argued Jonas.
He argued that the respondent’s actions are a blatant disregard of the Constitution of the Union, unlawful and irregular.
“I pray that this rule nisi should be confirmed and made a final order of the court,” he said.
On behalf of the respondents, attorney Yandeni Boko argued that his clients acted in good spirit and best interests of the union. He argued that the members had to act and call for an extra-ordinary congress after meeting the 25% threshold because the committee had been dissolved.
Boko further argued that from the start, the eligibility of Marobela as a chairperson candidate was never in doubt. It was just fear on the part of the Executive Committee not to allow Marobela to contest for that position, he added.
“We all know that there were no elections but the Electoral Officer had dissolved the Committee. Their term ended immediately and from there onwards; there was no committee, hence why the members had to act and call for an extraordinary congress,” he argued.
Boko also argued that the Electoral Officer had no mandate afterwards to reinstate the old committee.
“The Electoral Officer has never been clothed with powers to reinstate the old Executive Committee. Her mandate was in relation to the events of March 19 only. She had no authority or powers to restore the committee. We submit that this application was of no merit and the rule nisi must be discharged with costs,” he said. Judgement on the matter will be delivered on May 23.