Home | News | COP CHARGED FOR MEAT THEFT AT LOZITHA ROYAL PALACE

COP CHARGED FOR MEAT THEFT AT LOZITHA ROYAL PALACE

22/05/2024 08:50:00 Kwanele Dlamini

Font size:

MBABANE – A police officer has been charged for allegedly stealing meat at Lozitha Royal Palace.

Sergeant Jabulani Ndzinisa, who is stationed at the Police Academy in Matsapha, is alleged to have committed the offence together with a soldier. The offence was reportedly committed on February 18, 2024, at the palace. The police sergeant’s charge states that in committing the offence, he purportedly acted in common purpose with Sibusiso Shongwe, who is a member of Umbutfo Eswatini Defence Force (UEDF). They are alleged to have stolen 70 cases of chicken carcasses and one case of chicken breasts. The meat was valued at E6 722.61. According to the charge, the meat was in the lawful possession of Bala Murali. Eight witnesses have been lined up for Ndzinisa’s hearing. The charge also states that the police sergeant acted in a disorderly manner, which is prejudicial to discipline and brings discredit to the reputation of the Royal Eswatini Police Service (REPS).

Contravening

Ndzinisa of Makhwelela in the Shiselweni Region, has been charged for allegedly contravening Section 49(1)(d)(1) as read with Section 59(1)(d)(11) of the Police Service Act, 2018.
He was expected to appear before the Administrative Board. However, Ndzinisa is opposed to appearing before the Administrative Board. His argument is that this Board is inconsistent with Section 33 of the Constitution. This section states, under the right to administrative justice, that ‘a person appearing before any administrative authority has a right to be heard and treated justly and fairly in accordance with the requirements imposed by law, including the requirements of fundamental justice or fairness and has a right to apply to a court of law in respect of any decision taken against that person with which that person is aggrieved’. Ndzinisa has rushed to the High Court, where he is challenging his appearance before the Administrative Board.

The sergeant informed the court that he was summoned to appear before the Administrative Board established by the national commissioner of police to answer to the charge. He said he was due to appear before the Board tomorrow, as he was charged with a disciplinary offence. According to Ndzinisa, he was subsequently summoned to the disciplinary hearing set for tomorrow. He said the matter was postponed and was set to appear again before the Administrative Board on May 23, 2024 at Matsapha Police Academy. “On May 15, 2024, I was summoned to appear before the Administrative Board under the chairmanship of the third respondent (chairman of the Board) on Thursday May 23, 2024, which Board is going to sit at the Matsapha Police Academy. The Administrative Board before which I am going to appear on May 23, 2024 was established by the second respondent in terms of Section 52(d) of the Police Service Act, 2018,” submitted Ndzinisa. The veracity of these allegations is still to be tested in court. The respondents are yet to file their answering papers. The applicant is represented by Leo Ndvuna Dlamini of L.N. Dlamini and Associates.

He said it comprised of a number of senior police officers, who are subordinates to the national commissioner of police. Ndzinisa informed the court that the Board is composed of senior officers, with one Senior Superintendent A. Zwane being the Chairperson/President. He said the other members were S. Shongwe and L.Mdluli, who are both assistant superintendents.
The prosecutorial team, according to Ndzinisa, consists of Inspector M. Shabangu and L. Hlatshwayo. The sergeant argued that the Board was established in terms of Section 52 of the Act and was established by the national commissioner of police. Ndzinisa noted that the national commissioner of police was the complainant as the charges which he was called to answer to emanated from his office. He averred that the Board was assembled by the second respondent (police commissioner) and so was the prosecutorial team.

He said he was advised and verily believed that Section 33 of the Constitution frowned upon the establishment and composition of the Board. According to the sergeant, the act of the national police commissioner contravened the rules of natural justice, as clearly shown that the members of the Board were all subordinates and government employees in the REPS under the control of the national commissioner and are under his superintendence. “The second respondent’s act of preferring charges against me, the applicant herein, then appoint a tribunal to preside and adjudicate over the same complaint and finally identify, on his own, prosecutors for my case, contravenes the nemo iudex in causa or ‘no one shall be a judge in his own cause rule of natural justice entrenched in Section 33 and 189(5) of the Constitution under the Bill of Rights.”

He submitted that in establishing the Administrative Board, before which he was called upon to appear, the national commissioner of police was acting in terms of Section 52 of the Act.
“The second respondent’s act, even though sanctioned by the provisions of Section 52 of the Act, compromises the independence and impartiality of the Service Commission envisaged by Section 173(1) of the Constitution. Impartiality and independence of the sectoral service commissions are the cornerstones for the proper management of the entire civil service. The Administrative Board established by the second respondent cannot meet this constitutional threshold,” Ndzinisa argued. Ndzinisa is represented by Leo Ndvuna Dlamini of L.N. Ndvuna Dlamini and Associates.