[imagesource:flickr]

It would appear as if justice in South Africa is not only blind but deaf and dumb too.

A Mpumalanga man was convicted and sentenced for a maintenance affair without being charged or standing trial. The Prosecuting Authority has said that the proceedings were ‘not in accordance with the law’, but bigger questions have now been raised about the judge’s understanding of SA law.

In December last year, the Mpumalanga father was summoned to court over failure to pay maintenance. Upon receiving the summons, the man approached the prosecutor and an arrangement was made to pay off the arrears of R6 000 in two separate instalments, with the first to be made on the same day he was supposed to appear in court.

Prosecutors agreed to the arrangement and the matter was called for a postponement to allow the arrangement to take effect.

“When the case was called, the Public Prosecutor informed the court of the arrangement he reached with the accused and requested it to confirm this and if he admitted that he owed R6 000 in arrears for maintenance of the child.”

It was at this point that the accused was notified that the court had already found him guilty as charged, and he was summoned to appear for a mitigation of sentence. All of this was a surprise to the father and when he subsequently appeared in court he was unable to make submissions as according to him and the prosecutor, the matter had been dealt with.

Despite converting the matter into an inquiry, the magistrate still sentenced the man to a R6 000 fine or six months imprisonment.

Not being deterred by something as silly as due process and the law, the judge also failed to consider that once the case was converted into an inquiry, it was no longer a criminal matter, and the man should not have been convicted with a possible prison sentence.

The case was deferred for review, and the judge noted: “The proceedings were not in accordance with the law.”

“In so doing, the magistrate failed to promote the judicial independence which stems from the separation of powers, with the prosecution authority on one side and the judicial one on the other. The magistrate also failed to protect the accused’s constitutional rights in this matter.”

The prosecuting authority has slammed the case as an example of how inexperienced magistrates were assigned to maintenance courts where they are neglected in terms of training and peer guidance. They also noted that ‘such mistakes could potentially bring it into disrepute and could cause grave injustice to members of the public with severe repercussions to judicial officers, including but not limited to being sued.’

The conviction and sentence have now been set aside by the courts and, hopefully, the magistrates presiding over these cases will receive some support to avoid people from being convicted for ‘crimes’ without proper procedure, or the law, being followed.

[source:news24]