A candidate attorney has won her battle with the Legal Practice Council to be allowed to do her compulsory vocational training — even though she is an accused in the Mhlathuze Water Board corruption matter.
Charon Nofezile Mhlanga is the wife of attorney Ralph Mhlanga of Mhlanga Inc.
They are key players in a high-profile corruption case in which Mthokozisi Duze (former CEO of Mhlathuze Water) and Babongile Mnyandu (former CFO of Mhlathuze Water) allegedly took paybacks from Mhlanga after giving his law firm contracts worth about R37m.
It is alleged that some of that money was channelled to NDC Investments, a company owned by Charon Mhlanga, and it was used by the couple to build a palatial mansion in Ballito.
Charon Mhlanga disclosed the fact that she was facing charges of money-laundering in her application to the LPC for registration for practical vocational training (PVT) as a candidate attorney. She stated that her husband “had sent her money to build their home”.
He was facing charges of fraud and corruption and she, in turn, had been charged with money laundering. She said she intended to plead not guilty.
In March 2024 the LPC refused to register her, saying her registration would be reconsidered once the criminal proceedings were finalised.
Aggrieved, Mhlanga went to court. Last week Pietermaritzburg acting high court judge Vishalan Naidu ruled in her favour, essentially finding that the LPC had not followed its own rules and procedures and had not given Mhlanga the right to be heard before making its decision.
Naidu said the LPC had not properly assessed whether she was “fit and proper” to be registered.
Mhlanga graduated cum laude with an LLB degree in October 2023. As is required, she concluded a PVT contract with attorney Sihle Hlongwane, another director of Mhlanga Inc and applied for registration with the LPC.
The LPC asked for further information, including a copy of the charge sheet, her bail conditions and information regarding her income, all of which she provided.
She received the rejection letter in March 2024 .
Naidu said the LPC had opposed her application to review and set aside this decision.
Its legal officer, Anita Willoughby, said “further investigations” had identified material facts which she had not disclosed.
She said there was a “positive duty” on Mhlanga to establish that she was fit and proper to practice, which was distinct from, and unrelated to, the right to be presumed innocent in criminal proceedings.
The LPC’s decision leaves Mhlanga without any chance of entering the legal profession until her criminal trial is finalised. That date is unknown.
— Pietermaritzburg acting high court judge Vishalan Naidu
Mhlanga, Willoughby said, had made only “extremely terse” disclosures about the criminal charge she was facing, and merely stating that she intended to plead not guilty was “insufficient”.
Willoughby, in her affidavit, had said: “Ms Mhlanga stated that the funds were sent to herself to build a family home. It, however, emerged from the charge sheet that the funds she referred to amounted to almost R18m and were not paid to her, but to NDC Investments, a company of which she was a sole director. This bolsters the potential for money laundering and certainly warranted full disclosure.”
She said Mhlanga had also not disclosed that the Asset Forfeiture Unit had seized assets belonging to the couple.
Naidu said the March decision had been rooted in the serious criminal charges. But then, later that month, after Mhlanga challenged it, it had “metamorphosed” into also involving non-specific “pecuniary interests”.
He said the LPC’s conduct “lacked transparency” and it appeared it had attempted, after taking the decision, to supplement its reasons and “superficially cure the defect”.
He said the LPC had not made a “fit and proper” assessment and did not give Mhlanga the right to motive as to why she should be registered for PVT.
“The fundamental rules of natural justice were ignored by the LPC.”
He said candidate attorneys differed from admitted attorneys. They were employed under the aegis of an admitted attorney who trains and supervises them. They do not have access to clients or trust and business accounts.
Further, her alleged dishonesty had not been established by a court.
“This must not be construed as an outlet for candidate attorneys and pupil advocates to disavow obedience to integrity, honesty and good faith and to fail to live up to their duties. On the contrary, they are duty-bound to uphold them if the public trust and rule of law are to be maintained in our constitutional democracy,” Naidu said.
“But each case must be assessed on its own facts. The LPC’s decision leaves Mhlanga without any chance of entering the legal profession until her criminal trial is finalised. That date is unknown.
“The trend in criminal matters involving charges of corruption and money-laundering is that the cases are protracted. These relevant considerations were not considered when the LPC made its decision,” he said, saying it was a breach of the Promotion of Administration of Justice Act.
He noted that despite being charged, her husband and Mhlanga Inc continued to practise and the LPC had taken no action against them.
“This is tantamount to inconsistent and unequal application of the rules,” Naidu said.
He said the litmus test for her fit and proper assessment would take place when she applied to court to be admitted as an attorney.
In ordering the LPC to register her for training, he also ruled that Mhlanga must do her training under the direction of another attorney, at another law firm.
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.