Ex OCJ officials say ‘judiciary politics’ made them do it

In a fight to “clear their names”, three former top officials at the office of the chief justice (OCJ) accused of illegally using their positions to land a lucrative subcontract of a R255m online court tender, have blamed “judicial politics” for their plight.

The Sunday Times reported that, in an affidavit filed last week, former OCJ CFO Casper Coetzer accused his former boss, OCJ secretary-general Memme Sejosengwe, of falsely stating under oath that she only became aware of the subcontract weeks after he told her about it.

The OCJ strongly denied the claims, saying they were “not only misleading but also an attempt to divert attention from their wrongful and unlawful conduct”.

Last year, the Sunday Times reported that the three, who each played “vital roles” in awarding the contract to Thomson Reuters, joined forces as its local partners. They spent their last day at the OCJ on May 31 last year, and on June 1 began work as directors of their company ZA Square Consulting, set to earn as much as R126m from the deal.

Coetzer deposed to the affidavit on behalf of himself and two colleagues, former OCJ spokesperson Nathi Mncube and former case management director Yvonne van Niekerk. The affidavit was filed as part of a court application the three have launched to join the court action between the OCJ and Thomson Reuters to have the contract set aside and re-concluded.

In a previous affidavit deposed late last year to “correct allegations made” by a Hawks investigator in an application for a search and seizure warrant, Coetzer blames judiciary politics when explaining why Mncube and Van Niekerk’s positions at the OCJ “under the leadership of Sejosengwe” had become “untenable”.

He describes incidents that “served as a catalyst to seriously consider registering ZA Square and inquire about the process to subcontract with Thomson Reuters”.

Coetzer claims that in December 2021, a month before the contract was signed between his company ZA Square and Thomson Reuters, Mncube was told by the OCJ’s deputy director-general advocate Marelize Potgieter that Sejosengwe wanted to discuss the judiciary’s annual report due for release the following week.

“In the meeting, Ms Sejosengwe indicated that the then acting chief justice Raymond Zondo had expressed his disquiet about the inclusion of justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga in the draft programme for the Judiciary Day event ... Sejosengwe took issue that Mncube and Van Niekerk included justice Madlanga in the programme.”

[Sejosengwe] then blamed Mncube and Van Niekerk [for] not managing the ‘judiciary politics’ well, knowing that there were tensions within the judiciary because of the pending Chief Justice’s interviews.

—  Casper Coetzer

In the affidavit Coetzer says that when they allegedly explained Madlanga was a senior judge and would be performing the functions of a deputy chief justice, Sejosengwe “then blamed Mncube and Van Niekerk [for] not managing the ‘judiciary politics’ well, knowing there were tensions within the judiciary because of the pending chief justice’s interviews”.

Coetzer claims Potgieter told the two she had “picked up a lot of errors in the judiciary report and that the report was of poor quality”, the errors were “deliberately meant to embarrass Zondo with the view to jeopardise his chances of becoming the chief justice”, and accused them of preferring justice Madlanga for the top job because Van Niekerk once clerked for him.

Coetzer further alleged that Potgieter accused them of plotting to “get rid” of her and Sejosengwe and was angling for their jobs.

Coetzer claimed Potgieter also said Zondo “did not want to have any direct communication with Mncube and Van Niekerk” and “all communication was supposed to go through Adv Potgieter”.

“The environment was so hostile that Mr Mncube considered resigning in December 2021,” he said.

However, the OCJ rubbished their claims, saying they had nothing to do with their case involving Thomson Reuters because the multinational media company has long since cancelled their contract with them.

“The basis of the application to intervene seems therefore to be vexatious and meritless and brought solely to harass and embarrass,” it said.

“The only inference to draw from the application to intervene, is to misdirect and the misdirection is a subtle art that cleverly diverts public attention from their unlawful and potentially criminal conduct. This inference also attempts to cast negative aspersions on the judiciary and make allegations of internal ‘judicial politics’ which have nothing to do with the matter at hand,” the OCJ said.

“The insinuation that relationships have gone sour to the extent that their hand was forced to register a company and enter into a contractual arrangement with Thomson Reuters, is nothing but an excuse to take away responsibility for their decisions and actions and is therefore devoid of any merit.”

The OCJ said the annual judiciary report is “an instrument through which the judiciary accounts to the public for its performance of judicial functions”.

“Accuracy in reporting is of the utmost importance. It is against this light that their supervisor (Adv Potgieter) has rightfully questioned them on the below-par product that was submitted and due for publication in early December 2021. Sejosengwe and Potgieter had no choice but to personally intervene and rework the report to ensure that it conforms to the expected standards,” the OCJ said.

The OCJ added that the trio admitted they reserved the name of ZA Square with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) in October 2021 and formally registered the company on December 15 of that year, which “indicates that a high-quality annual judiciary report was clearly not a priority to them”.

“One of the cornerstones of the employment relationship is trust. The employer trusts that the employee will perform his or her duties to the best of his or her abilities in accordance with the employer’s expectations. The key roles assigned to the former colleagues reflected the high level of trust that they have acquired during their tenure.

“On May 16 2022, the OCJ was formally informed by Thomson Reuters of the subcontract between itself and Coetzer and his colleagues, which then formed the official and legal basis on which the secretary-general instituted an official internal investigation and took other necessary measures as per section 34 of the Prevention of Corrupt Activities Act.”

The OCJ is gearing up for a fight.

“The OCJ is confident the court will rule in its favour and it will oppose the baseless intervention application by Coetzer and his colleagues and has already instructed senior counsel in this regard,” it said.

“The OCJ remains committed to ensuring the safety of public funds as well as service delivery to the judiciary in the interest of the public.”