The commanding officer's secretary at Stellenbosch police station abused her position to try to obtain a key piece of evidence from her boyfriend when he was brought in as a suspect in an alleged ATM robbery.
That is the view of the labour court in Cape Town, which this week found the dismissal of Nokuthula Ceki — employed in an administrative role — was in fact “substantively fair”, overturning a previous finding that she be retained by the SA Police Service.
The ruling by judge Robert Lagrange said Ceki attempted to “create an alibi for the suspects” in January 2019 after entering a boardroom where the officer who had arrested the suspects was drafting a statement.
During a police disciplinary hearing, the officer said he told her the case involved an ATM robbery in Stellenbosch and a hired car caught on CCTV. Ceki surprised the officer when she said the car had been in Mbekweni, not the robbery scene.
“[The officer] also testified that she asked if she could get their personal belongings and he told her she could collect their belts and shoelaces, but never said she could take the cellphones. He told her to go to the community service centre,” read the judgment.
“When he subsequently heard that she had still attempted to take [one suspect's] phone, he found that suspicious, and on the instruction of the station commander opened a criminal case against her. The criminal case was ultimately dismissed.
“[The officer] also testified Ceki had no need to be at the station at the time and was not supposed to be there. Another witness testified that Ceki had accompanied the police and the suspects to the cells, without having any reason to be there and that she had remained at the cells where the suspects were being held.”
Ceki was dismissed after being charged and found guilty of three forms of misconduct arising on January 16 2019. However, she challenged the finding and an arbitrator reinstated her with a final written warning.
The arbitrator heard that Ceki had spoken to the suspects in isiXhosa and “took a cellphone from one suspect but was ordered to hand it back to the investigating team because it was an exhibit in the case”, the judgment reads.
“All the SAPS witnesses in the arbitration were puzzled by her interest in the matter and that she was only interested in taking the cellphone of one of the suspects whereas all four of them had phones.”
According to the judgment, when the suspects went to the cells, “Ceki followed them and stood beneath the cells at the cell window ... No part of her duties required her to be present.”
How the trust between employer and employee could be said to have been maintained in those circumstances is difficult to fathom. The arbitrator’s finding that the trust relationship remained intact, if ‘tarnished’, had no foundation in the evidence
— Judge Robert Lagrange
Ceki testified at the hearing that one suspect phoned her to say he and others were arrested on the way to the airport. “He had asked her to come to the police station to find out the reason for their arrest ... inform their families and arrange a lawyer,” the judgment reads.
She told the arresting officer she was requested to collect the suspects' belongings.
The arbitrator found her conduct “improper and unacceptable because she used her privileges as an employee at the police station to enter the back of the station and obtain access to ... areas. Though she had permission to obtain some items from the suspects, she had no permission to take cellphones from them.”
The arbitrator then dealt with the question of how Ceki’s “association with a known criminal affected the employee-employer trust relationship”.
“The arbitrator noted the evidence of the officer commanding the police station, who was concerned that she was in a relationship with a known criminal, and that she had taken measures to prevent Ceki having access to certain information,” the judgment read.
“The arbitrator found Ceki’s version that she had no knowledge of her boyfriend’s doings highly unlikely and that her conduct had affected the employer-employee relationship. Nonetheless, there was no evidence that Ceki had attempted to conceal evidence by taking the cellphone. Accordingly even though Ceki’s conduct was improper, she could not conclude that the trust relationship was irreparably broken.”
Ceki was acquitted of her criminal charges after the case against the suspects was withdrawn.
“She testified that one of the suspects was her ‘on-off’ boyfriend for a decade, and they resumed the relationship in 2019. She claimed to be unaware of what he did in his private time.”
She pleaded ignorance about ATM robberies and said she would never have asked for the cellphones, knowing they would normally be used to gather evidence.
The arbitrator considered Ceki had five years’ service, a clean disciplinary record and that her conduct caused no harm to SAPS.
“Moreover, she continued to work for SAPS while the investigation was continuing. Accordingly she reinstated Ceki, limiting her back pay to 12 months’ remuneration and subject to her being issued with a final written warning for acting in an improper, disgraceful and unacceptable manner by attempting to take the cellphone of a suspect without permission,” the judgment read.
SAPS took the ruling to the labour court to have it reviewed and set aside, arguing the arbitrator misunderstood the charge of damaging their interests under the disciplinary regulations, emphasising that proving actual harm was not a requirement for the charge.
Lagrange found the arbitrator should not have concluded it was unfair to dismiss Ceki based on the evidence before her.
“The evidence showed that Ceki used her position as a staff member at the station to gain access to the suspects and to try to prevent her boyfriend’s cellphone from being retained by the investigators,” Lagrange said in the judgment.
“Had she succeeded, the consequence would have been inimical to the investigation and obviously amounted to an attempt to interfere with it. Ceki showed no remorse for her conduct. The officer commanding had to take steps to prevent Ceki having access to sensitive information, so even though she was not suspended pending the disciplinary action, it was necessary to take additional measures to address the lack of trust which had developed.
“Where it was deemed necessary to take special measures to prevent Ceki having access to sensitive information, it is clear the trust the officer commanding had in her secretary was broken. How the trust between employer and employee could be said to have been maintained in those circumstances is difficult to fathom. The arbitrator’s finding that the trust relationship remained intact, if ‘tarnished’, had no foundation in the evidence.”
Lagrange overturned the decision and ruled that Ceki’s “dismissal was substantively fair”.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.