LSB triumphs over Sebego
Mpho Mokwape | Friday February 3, 2017 16:21
The LSB, who found Sebego guilty of professional misconduct and fined him P7,500 through the disciplinary committee (DC), brought the appeal to the Court of Appeal (CoA) after they lost against Sebego at the High Court.
The renowned lawyer had last year at the High Court brought review proceedings to set aside the decision of the DC after he accused them of finding him guilty without thorough investigation. Justice Ian Kirby yesterday upheld the appeal against Sebego with costs and set aside the decision of the court a quo replacing it with a dismissal.
Kirby said he disagreed with the findings of the court a quo that the LSB bared the burden of proof in any misconduct hearings.
He explained that in the context that the obligation of the committee to investigate the complaint, the LSB has neither the manpower nor the resources to question witnesses, take statements nor secure documentary evidence in the manner of the police investigations or as was sometimes required in particular disciplinary codes.
“To impose such a burden would be to render the DC unworkable having regard to the volume of the complaints with which it has to deal with,” he said.
He said as it can readily be discerned from the Act that there were two levels of professional misconduct, Sebego was charged with the less serious one, which was punishable by warning, a reprimand or a fine.
Kirby explained that it was the one which was dealt with by the committee in a summary fashion by considering the complaint, making a decision and determining a penalty on an exchange of affidavits without the preferring of formal charges.
He said in that case, a warning or reprimand was final while the fine can be appealed.
“In this case the consideration of the affidavit and attachments supplied by the complainant did in my judgement satisfy the requirement of the committee to investigate the complaint by making such inquiry as it may deem fit,” he said.
On the request for Sebego to introduce further evidence, Kirby maintained that it was too late as it was only made more than a year after the expiry of the time within which he was to respond to the complaint, and after the committee had already made its decision.
Lastly, Kirby said in the interest of justice as the case has shown, the LSB should endeavour to expedite the management of public complaints if necessary by possibly expanding the membership of its DC.