Court Wants BPL Forensic Report Availed
Kabelo Boranabi | Monday April 10, 2017 13:04
Mpiwa, together with the former BPL chief executive officer, Bennett Mamelodi were suspended as the BFA carried out a forensic audit which has allegedly unearthed gross maladministration and financial impropriety.
Mpiwa was suspended in December last year and called for disciplinary hearing last month. Mpiwa’s boss Mamelodi was fired last week for reasons not divulged by the BFA.
Industrial Court Judge Tebogo Maruping on Friday said the BFA, through its attorney, Kutobe Modie should bring the forensic report and the BFA constitution to court to determine if Mpiwa was constitutionally hired by the BPL and if he is implicated of any wrong doing in the report.
Maruping said he could no understand how Mpiwa entered into a legal contract with BPL despite the body being an association of the BFA hence cannot be able to sue or be sued.
He also said the two documents would give the court a clear view in the case. “Something that is not a legal persona cannot enter in to a legal contract.
It cannot sue or be sued. You cannot enter into a contract that was endorsed by another body.
I know nothing about the BFA or Premier League, I believe the documents would give us a picture of what they really are in the legal status,” he said.
Representing the BFA, Modie said the BPL as an association of the BFA can enter into a legal contract that is mandated by the BFA.
He further said Mpiwa, who was notified of the events on the day of the hearing, was well aware of all the legal proceedings against him hence has the time to prepare for the hearing.
“The applicant made a bold statement that he would proceed with the hearing. It was not a question of being ready but he would just proceed,” Modie told the court.
For his part, appearing for Mpiwa, Tirelo Makgane said the report that his client was charged against was not adopted by the BFA at the time of the hearing.
He further said the BFA disciplinary committee chairman, Billy Leselwa ignored all the advances by his client that he needed time to prepare for the hearing and continued with the proceedings.
“The chairman was not fit to conduct the hearing as the contract is between the BPL and my client.
My client was only served with the audit report of which the disciplinary hearing is based upon, on the day of the hearing,” he said. The case continues on April 13.