Sechaba ka’Nkosi
Minister of Education Kader Asmal has criticised the Law Society of the Transvaal for publicly announcing its intention to oust Tiego Moseneke, a Johannesburg lawyer and businessman, from the roll of attorneys without giving reasons to either Moseneke or the public.
Asmal has also questioned the role of the National Association of Democratic Lawyers (Nadel) in the affair, querying whether it has fulfilled its responsibility to help steer the transformation of the law society.
Asmal’s intervention – in his personal capacity – follows the law society’s failure to oppose an application to the high court by Moseneke to furnish him with reasons. The society missed its deadline last week to file its response to Moseneke’s motion application, despite having publicly confirmed its intention to do so.
Moseneke this week set the matter down on the unopposed roll.
The dispute erupted in the public domain in April when the law society publicly announced it was moving to strike Moseneke from the roll of attorneys, giving no reasons for the move.
Asmal this week wrote to Nadel vice- president Mohamed Husain – who is also vice-presidenct of the law society – to seek clarity on Nadel’s involvement in the case.
Nadel opposed the society under apartheid, but joined hands with it after 1994 – in an apparent effort to accelerate its transformation.
Asmal says of the law society’s decision to gun for Moseneke without reasons: ”Such action that has been taken is, in my experience, highly irregular and contrary to any notion of just administrative action.”
He continues: ”The fact of an announcement unaccompanied by reasons sets the imagination free to speculate wildly and creates the impression of a law society that has faltered in its quest to align itself with the values of the new order.”
Asmal explains his letter on the grounds that he has a strong personal interest in constitutional and disciplinary matters. Asmal chairs Parliament’s disciplinary committee.
In his letter he questions the society’s silence on the decision of its disciplinary head, Piet Langenhoven, to make public statements on the issue before Moseneke was given the reasons for the society’s application.
”I feel quite certain that Nadel is not – or certainly ought not to be – associated with such conduct,” wrote Asmal, stressing that the letter is a personal rather than official communication with Husain.
Asmal says he knows Moseneke, and stresses that he does not want to broach the merits of the matter.
Asmal queries whether the council would have authorised Langenhoven to make public statements in such a sensitive matter.
”It seems to me that the proper procedure in such matters is to provide the person against whom a charge or charges are to be prepared with reasons for such action, before a strong public pronouncement is made.”
Neither Husain nor Nadel could be reached for comment at the time of going to press.
An internal charge sheet from the law society shows that the body moved against Moseneke after having received several complaints about Moseneke’s firm, some of which have since been dropped.
Several of the charges relate to the conduct of other partners in the firm, which has wound down its litigation department. The charges do not suggest any deliberate misappropriation of finances, but instead deal with allegedly negligent conduct, and failure to execute clients’ instructions.
One of the charges against Moseneke is his failure to attend a disciplinary inquiry into these matters – and answer correspondence from the law society.
A representative of Moseneke’s firm confirmed Moseneke was awaiting a court date from the Johannesburg High Court to hear his application against the law society.