Brian Chiwanza
A National University of Lesotho (NUL) lecturer who has been on suspension since 2012 wants his “long overdue” disciplinary hearing to be scrapped.
Thuso Rabele was indefinitely suspended on full pay for allegedly soliciting bribes and sexual favours from students in exchange for a pass in their exams.
However, his lawyer, Advocate Lehlohonolo Matee, on Friday told Labour Appeal Court judge, Justice Keketso Moahloli, if NUL proceeded with the hearing after such a long time, his client would be prejudiced.
Mr Rabele, who joined NUL in 2007, was summoned to a disciplinary hearing on 5 October 2012 and subsequently suspended pending finalisation of the case.
However, he took the case to the Labour Appeal Court after “undue delays” to hear his case by the NUL authorities.
According to his court papers, the initial disciplinary hearing set for 18 January 2013 was canceled, and the university postponed the matter “until further notice”.
On 2 July 2013, the hearing was further postponed, and Mr Rabele invited to the varsity through a letter dated 4 September 2014.
Part of the letter read: “You are requested to report to the head of your department and sign all the annual leave days accrued to date and proceed on leave.”
Mr Rabele then approached the Labour Court, through his lawyer Advocate Matee, seeking a permanent stay of the disciplinary proceedings.
His application was duly dismissed on 28 July 2015.
However, his lawyer appealed this ruling, arguing: “The president of the Labour Court erred by dismissing the appellant’s application while sitting alone in chambers and also holding that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to grant interdicts.”
And on 28 September, Mr Rabele argued in the Labour Appeal Court for his application to be heard on an urgent basis.
The court ruled in his favour. On Friday, Justice Moahloli then ordered Mr Matee to submit reasons why he should grant a permanent stay of the disciplinary hearing.
“You must show the existence of exceptional circumstances for me to grant the stay. I would like to hear persuasive arguments,” the judge said.
In response, Advocate Matee cited the undue delay to hear the case by the respondents as compelling reason to grant the prayer.
“Should the disciplinary proceedings continue, there will be no procedural fairness,” he argued.
“It’s a question of prejudice in this case. Will the appellant not suffer prejudice for an offense committed in 2012 and now it is 2015?
“I might not be able to recollect all the events that may be necessary for my defense. This is only normal for human beings.
“Most, if not all of the witnesses that I would have called in my defense, are no longer available.
“For us, it’s like waging war against a giant. They can’t run away because they have the budget.
“Undue delay leads to unfairness. Is it fair then to proceed? What that means, only God knows but my suspicion would be: Get rid of this employee.”
In the opposing heads of argument, Advocate Letuka Molati urged the court not to end the university’s disciplinary proceedings.
“Courts of law should not interfere in the workings of domestic tribunals or internal decisions of organisations.
“This honorable court has no jurisdiction to grant the prayer being sought by the applicant,” Advocate Molati noted.
“Can the court order that the disciplinary case against the appellant be stayed permanently? Its answer is negative and in all circumstances this appeal should be dismissed.”
Justice Moahloli reserved his judgment.