Johannesburg businessman Hugh Glenister’s bid to stop the government from disbanding the Scorpions has failed.
The Pretoria High Court on Wednesday struck his application from the roll, saying it was not in its jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
The court concluded that the principle of separation of powers prevented it from interfering with the executive’s power to prepare and initiate legislation, as well as with the right of Parliament to deliberate on proposed legislation brought before it.
The court further concluded that if exceptional circumstances existed — warranting interference with parliamentary procedures — it was for the Concourt to decide on that issue.
Last-minute affidavit
Last week the acting prosecutions boss, Mokotedi Mpshe, submitted a last-minute affidavit that laid bare government’s dishonesty in dealing with the matter.
Glenister’s case was originally considered a shot in the dark by legal observers, but Mpshe’s intervention appeared to have immensely bolstered the argument that the process of closing down the Scorpions was illegal. Mpshe’s affidavit also said disbanding the elite unit could cause the collapse of the 546 cases under investigation by the Scorpions and ”bring the criminal justice system into disrepute”.
Glenister’s counsel, David Unterhalter SC, previously told the court that the government’s proposed Bill, which would lead to the disbanding of the unit, was ”structural amputation of the organisation”.
He argued that the government’s decision to dissolve the Scorpions was unlawful as it was not in the public interest, but in the ”narrow interests” of the ANC.
”This is not being done in order to create a better oiled machine, it is being done to carry out the narrow interests of the ANC as a political party,” he told the court.
He said the decision to disband the unit was irrational and taken after the conference of the ANC in December, and followed the Scorpions’ investigation of high-ranking party officials.
”It was precisely because the [Scorpions] were seen to have become threatening to a particular political party that it was taken out.
”You cannot take apart an entire institution because of the instance of a political party that is saying its scrutiny of it is too much,” he further contended. – Sapa