…as they demand reinstatement and back-pay, threaten legal action against Ministry
Hopolang Mokhopi
FIVE Assistant Civil Registration and ID Enrolment Officers dismissed by the Ministry Home Affairs and Police are threatening legal action, accusing the government of violating labour laws and denying them a fair disciplinary process.
The officers — Lieketso Mphatsoe, Mochoko Sebeko, Fusi Homo, Lekhetho Ratšele and Mahlomola Phutheho — were dismissed on 1 October 2026 following disciplinary proceedings over alleged misconduct involving the National Identity and Civil Registration system.
Through their lawyer, Advocate Katiso Nhlapo, they are demanding that the Ministry withdraw their dismissal letters, reinstate them immediately and pay all outstanding salaries and benefits from the date of their dismissal.
In separate but largely identical letters dated 11 October 2026 and addressed to the Ministry’s Principal Secretary, minister and director, Adv Nhlapo gave the government three calendar days from receipt of the demands to comply, warning that failure to do so would result in court action.
The lawyer argues that the dismissals were procedurally and substantively unlawful, alleging that the ministry failed to properly consider the officers’ explanations, provide reasons for the disciplinary panel’s recommendations and clearly identify the rules they were accused of breaching.
“The actions of the ministry constitute severe violations of the principles of natural justice, administrative fairness, and the Labour Act, 2024,” Adv Nhlapo states in the letters.
The lawyer further argues that the ministry’s handling of the disciplinary proceedings created the impression that the outcome had been predetermined, despite the officers having submitted written responses to the allegations against them.
Allegations of fraud and bribery
The disciplinary action followed allegations of misconduct, including fraud, dishonesty, bribery, falsification of records, irregular processing of birth and identity document applications, unauthorised registrations and misuse of the national identity system.
The allegations against Ms Mphatsoe and Mr Sebeko include claims that M1000 was solicited from an applicant to change names in the system, while M500 was allegedly paid to process an unauthorised alteration using another officer’s login credentials.
However, both officers deny the alleged bribery transactions, with their lawyer arguing that the allegations are contradictory and unsupported by corroborating evidence.
In Ms Mphatsoe’s case, Adv Nhlapo questions how the ministry could allege that she solicited M1000 while also accusing her of paying Mr Sebeko M500, who denies receiving the money.
“The logical inconsistency in these charges, combined with the lack of concrete evidence of a bribe, demonstrates that the ministry failed to discharge its burden of proof,” the lawyer argues.
Mr Sebeko, meanwhile, admits to a procedural lapse involving the use of system credentials but denies that he acted fraudulently or deliberately engaged in misconduct.
According to the demand letter, Mr Sebeko explained that his actions occurred under significant work pressure and operational challenges, with administrative backlogs contributing to the circumstances surrounding the incident.
His lawyer argues that the ministry failed to properly consider these mitigating circumstances before imposing the ultimate penalty of dismissal.
Messrs Homo and Phutheho also challenge the ministry’s decision, arguing that administrative errors and procedural lapses were treated as evidence of serious misconduct without sufficient proof of fraudulent intent.
Mr Phutheho had been accused of involvement in the issuing of duplicate death certificates, bypassing system controls and participating in an alleged syndicate. He denied any fraudulent intent or involvement in illicit activities, attributing the administrative lapses to workload pressures.
Questions over fairness of hearings
Adv Nhlapo describes his clients case as fundamental defects in the disciplinary process, particularly the handling of their written representations and the delay in communicating the disciplinary panel’s recommendations.
The officers were initially served with show-cause notices between March and June 2026 and submitted written responses. Disciplinary hearings were subsequently held in June, but the panel’s recommendation to dismiss them was only communicated on 24 September 2026.
The ministry then gave the officers three days to explain why the recommendation should not be upheld before issuing the dismissal letters on 1 October.
Adv Nhlapo argues that the ministry failed to explain why the officers’ initial representations had been rejected or why their explanations did not persuade the disciplinary panel.
“The ministry proceeded with disciplinary action without providing any explanation as to why their reasons were rejected,” the letters state.
The lawyer maintains that the show-cause process was reduced to a formality because the officers were not given adequate reasons for the panel’s findings before being asked to respond to the proposed dismissals.
He also questions the delay between the hearings and the communication of the recommendations, arguing that it undermined the fairness of the proceedings.
For Ms Mphatsoe, whose hearing was held on 3 June, the recommendation was communicated on 24 September. Mr Sebeko’s hearing took place on 2 and 3 June, while Mr Homo’s was held on 4 June.
In Mr Phutheho’s matter, the lawyer points to an even longer period between the initial show-cause notice of 23 March and the communication of the panel’s recommendation on 24 September.
The letters argue that the delays were unreasonable and prejudicial to the officers.
‘Vague and unsubstantiated’ charges
Adv Nhlapo further challenges the way the ministry framed the charges, arguing that the dismissal letters refer to “Part B 4” offences without specifying the exact provisions of the regulations, policies or code of conduct allegedly breached.
The lawyer says the officers were not provided with the rules they were accused of violating, making it difficult for them to understand the precise basis of the disciplinary action.
“Charging an employee with breaching rules they have never seen is a gross violation of procedural fairness,” the letters state.
The lawyer also argues that the ministry failed to provide adequate particulars of some allegations, including the specific conduct, dates and evidence linking the officers to the alleged offences.
He maintains that the disciplinary panel should have distinguished between administrative shortcomings and gross misconduct, particularly in cases where the officers cited workload pressures and denied fraudulent intent.
“Even if procedural lapses occurred, the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate,” the letter concerning Homo states, adding that the ministry should have considered mitigating circumstances and alternatives such as administrative retraining.
The legal challenge also raises questions about the right of appeal provided for in the dismissal letters. Although the officers were informed that they could appeal within five working days, Adv Nhlapo argues that the letters did not identify the authority to which appeals should be directed or explain the procedure to be followed.
“An appeal right without a designated appellate authority is meaningless and illusory,” the lawyer states.
Chronological anomaly
Mr Ratšele’s case raises a separate concern over the sequence of events recorded in the disciplinary documents.
According to Adv Nhlapo, he received a show-cause notice dated 16 June 2026, yet his dismissal letter states that a disciplinary hearing was held on 4 June 2026 — 12 days before the notice was issued.
Adv Nhlapo argues that the chronology raises serious questions about whether Mr Ratšele was formally charged and afforded an opportunity to respond before the hearing took place.
“It is procedurally impossible for a hearing (4th June 2026) to precede the charges (16th June 2026),” the letter states.
The lawyer contends that the discrepancy amounts to a fundamental breach of natural justice and renders the disciplinary process, and the resulting dismissal, invalid.
In response to the dismissal decision, the five officers are demanding the immediate withdrawal and cancellation of their dismissal letters, reinstatement without loss of salary, benefits or seniority, and payment of all back-pay and accrued benefits.
Adv Nhlapo has warned that failure to meet the demands within three calendar days of receiving the letters will prompt legal proceedings in the appropriate courts.
Contacted for comment, Ministry of Home Affairs and Police spokesperson, Marelebohile Mothibeli, said she was not aware of the correspondence but would enquire next week.