ADVOCATE Tererai Mafukidze could be in trouble after the Legal Practice Council (LPC) referred his case against a former University of Johannesburg lecturer to an investigating committee.
This was after dismissed lecturer Lyness Matizirofa lodged a complaint of dishonesty against Mafukidze in an ongoing case between her and the university.
Matizirofa said Mafukidze failed to declare the relationship between South Gauteng High Court Judge Phanuel Mudau and former UJ vice-chancellor Professor Tshilidzi Marwala.
The complaint was lodged on May 13, 2024.
She said the alleged relationship between Judge Mudau and Marwala tainted the case even though it remains pending before the court.
Matizirofa said her complaint was not about the merits of the matter but his unlawful conduct in handling the matter while knowing that Judge Mudau and Marwala were related.
Matizirofa, who was a lecturer in the institution’s statistics department, was fired for poor performance and gross dishonesty in February 2020.
However, she argued that these were trumped-up charges. She said her dismissal was based on the fact that she had a disability, and also due to xenophobia because she was a Zimbabwean.
Matizirofa has been unsuccessfully fighting her dismissal in various courts.
In a letter issued to Mafukidze on August 14, the LPC said the matter would be referred to the committee for a recommendation.
“We cannot estimate how long it will take before a committee is convened due to the backlog we have with regard to the matters placed before the committee. We therefore request that you exercise some patience in this regard,” read the letter.
However, Mafukidze maintained that he does not know Marwala and Judge Mudau’s relatives.
“Neither do I know of the alleged relationship between them. As far as I am aware, they have denied being related,” he said.
LPC spokesperson Kabelo Letebele said the complaint is currently being attended to and investigated by the Gauteng Provincial Office. He said both parties were notified that the matter is to be placed before an investigating committee.
This would be to consider, on the papers only, whether the legal practitioner had made himself/herself guilty of misconduct.
“If so, a meeting will be scheduled when both the complainant and the legal practitioner will be called to either discuss, explain or elucidate the matter or, alternatively, the legal practitioner will be requested to answer to misconduct charges. Both parties will be notified of the committee’s recommendation once the committee has considered the matter,” said Letebele.
Matizirofa said Mafukidze, who was instructed by the UJ legal team Eversheds Sutherland, evaded accountability and responsibility and then capitulated to answer the wrong questions of law concerning her complaint.
This was after Matizirofa launched a complaint against Mafukidze and Eversheds Sutherland. She said Mafukidze was responsible for participating in a strategic lawsuit against public participation against her and her legal team.
She said Mafukidze also lied to the court and imputed words that she and her legal team had never used. Matizirofa said such participation was discriminatory, unlawful, and unconstitutional, and went against her access to justice in terms of Section 34 of the Constitution.
This was after Judge Mudau ruled in favour of UJ in August last year when Matizirofa challenged her dismissal in the South Gauteng High Court.
Matizirofa, in her complaint, said Mafukidze had made himself a party to such biased and unlawful conduct. She said he should have disclosed that Judge Mudau and Marwala were related.
She said Mafukidze’s response was a regurgitation of the pleaded cases and did not answer to his unlawful role in the three matters before the courts.
She also reported Judge Mudau to the Judicial Conduct Committee and the Office of the Chief Justice for failing to disclose his relationship with Marwala.