‘Mantšali Phakoana
The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) public relations manager, Tuoe Hantši, has filed a lawsuit against his boss, director of elections, Mpaiphele Maqutu for contempt of court.
In his labour court application on Monday this week, Hantši accuses Mpaiphele Maqutu, of ignoring an interim relief order issued on Thursday last week to reinstate him.
Hantši as a result is asking the court to impose “serious sanctions” against Maqutu for disobeying its orders.
IEC human resources manager (Motanyane Rampeta), director of legal services (Lehlohonolo Suping), the Independent Electoral Commission, chairman of the disciplinary hearing (Hlalele Tšolo), police officer commanding Maseru central police station, commissioner of police (Holomo Molibeli), and Attorney General (Rapelang Motsieloa) are cited as respondents in the case.
Hantši submits that due to the seriousness of the conduct of contempt, the court has to intervene in order to restore public confidence.
He says failure by the court to exercise its powers urgently on the matter would result in loss of confidence in the country’s legal system.
It would also mean the court’s decisions are not observed intentionally, he added.
The court ruled that the contempt case will be heard on October, 6 2023.
Hantši won an interim relief last week when the deputy president of the labour court, Makoanyane Keta, nullified his dismissal from the IEC.
Hantši was relieved of his duties on August 11, 2023, for alleged misconduct. His dismissal came as a result of a disciplinary hearing held in June this year.
In its ruling, the court had ordered Maqutu to reinstate Hantši and start the disciplinary hearing from the beginning allowing him legal representation.
According to court papers, Hantši presented himself to work on September 18 following the nullification of his dismissal.
But Suping and Rampeta told Hantši that he could only present himself for work when a written court order or judgement was available.
The labour court issued a written judgment on September, 21 2023 and Hantši presented it to work the following day. Suping was duly made aware that the judgement was in favour of the applicant.
Hantši told the court that Maqutu – who is also boss to Suping and Rampeta – was informed of his presence at work but he (Maqutu) has not complied with the court order.
“I aver that what the first respondent (Maqutu) has done, duly represented and or acting through his emissaries being the human resources manager and director legal, is contemptuous.
“Whilst inside the office, I was asked whether I had come with the court order or judgment and I confirmed that I had brought it along. The human resource manager (Rampeta) then asked what should be done. The director legal services (Suping) answered that since the judgment was available, he would request to have a look at it and or study it. He also said, in the meantime, I could wait until at least 09:00.
“I have since been waiting but to no avail. I further told the human resource manager that I was still waiting and there was no positive answer for allowing me into work.
“The human resource manager then sent me a WhatsApp telephone communication at 14:42 stating that he had passed on the judgment of the honourable court and that the first respondent (Maqutu) would look into the judgment afterwards,” Hantši wrote in his founding affidavit.
He noted that Maqutu’s conduct is contemptuous and falls within the powers of the court under Section 8 (24) (j) of the Labour Code (Amendment) Act of 2000 which reads as follows: “to commit and punish for contempt any person who disobeys or unlawfully refuses to carry out or to be bound by an order made against him or her by the Court under the code.”
According to the court papers, Hantši was initially denied legal representation during the hearing after requesting to have one. He was only being granted this midway through the hearing.
Dissatisfied by this, Hantši sought intervention from the labour court. The matter was concluded on September 7, 2023.
The final court order issued on August 1, 2023, granted Hantši the right to be represented by a legal practitioner of his own choice in the disciplinary hearing.
Despite this order, the hearing proceeded on August 11 this year and ultimately resulted in Hantši’s dismissal.
In his ruling last week, Keta further declared all decisions arising from the disciplinary hearing against Hantši null and void, and of no force and effect.
“It is the court’s finding that the disciplinary hearing that led to the applicant’s dismissal is null and void. Any decision taken in pursuance of the disciplinary hearing is of no force and effect.
“The 2nd respondent (IEC) is ordered to start the disciplinary hearing de novo, allowing legal representation of his own choice,” the court ordered.
Maqutu told a media briefing last month that Hantši had blatantly refused when he summoned him to his office, saying the act would only mean that the employer and employee relationship had completely broken down.
He added that due to the nature of the offence, Hantši was dismissed with immediate effect.
Contacted for comment on Tuesday this week after being served with the court papers, Maqutu said he did not deny Hantši entry to resume his duties.
He said he only received the judgment towards end of business on Friday, September, 22 2023 and was yet to meet his lawyer.
He added that he and the IEC lawyer Suping were served with the contempt case papers on Monday, September 25, while they were studying the judgment.
“You will understand that on Friday when I received the judgement, it was already business closing hours and I was yet to meet our legal practitioner.
“To say I denied him (Hantši) access to duty is false and misleading. He is just in a hurry to come back to work and thereby overlooking procedural steps that need to be followed before one abides by a court order or judgement,” Maqutu said.
He added: “Now it is for the court to decide whether I am guilty of contempt of court. Our focus has now been turned from the actual matter of dismissal as we are now focusing on the contempt case.”
