Prisoner, jailed for indecent assault, loses civil action over extended imprisonment

21 February 2020 · Carmel Rickard

A prisoner, convicted of indecent assault by the Eswatini courts, has tried to sue the magistrate who presided in his case, claiming he was kept in prison five months longer than his sentence. And indeed, he was kept in prison for extra time. But this was in terms of a high court review of his original sentence. Moreover, as the high court hearing the civil case pointed out, the magistrate who ordered the additional time in prison was acting in her official capacity, and the constitution stipulates that a judicial officer is immune from claims for anything done in the exercise of the judicial power. It’s an important reminder about judicial power. But why did it require a year for the court to deliver its decision?

Read judgment

As judges and their work become increasingly controversial across Africa, this case offers a timely reminder: it is extremely difficult to bring a successful civil case against a judicial officer for something he or she has done in the exercise of judicial power.

Former prisoner Bheki Shongwe wanted to sue the principal magistrate at the Mbabane magistrates courts, Fikile Nhlabatsi, in her official capacity. Shongwe also named the commissioner general of correctional services, the national commissioner of police and the attorney general as defendants in his action.

Personal liberty

In October 2018, Shongwe claimed E2,920,000 against all the defendants for damages, saying he had been wrongly deprived of his personal liberty when his imprisonment was extended for a period.

The case goes back to September 2016 when Shongwe was convicted of indecent assault and Nhlabatsi, the presiding officer, sentenced him to five years in prison or a fine of E5,000

The high court reviewed this sentence and though the five-year sentence was confirmed, the high court suspended four of those years. In addition, the high court decided that Shongwe should not be given the option of a fine.

Extended

According to Shongwe, his one year behind bars was up on 8 September 2017, but he was not immediately released. Instead, his prison term was extended a further five months ‘without any lawful authority or detention order’, and ‘without any committal warrant or court order’. This resulted in the extension of the deprivation of his personal liberty, he said, and he now sued for damages as a result.

But there had indeed been a legal basis for Shongwe’s extended imprisonment. When the high court reviewed the indecent assault sentence, it also ordered that he undergo counselling sessions while in prison. At the end of the year's imprisonment a report of the counselling progress was to be prepared and sent to Nhlabatsi, and the magistrate was ordered by the high court to ‘assess the counselling report’ at that point. Then she was to advise whether ‘further remedial action was necessary’. According to the high court, that ‘remedial action’ could include further counselling ‘or any such order’ as the magistrate considered necessary.

When Shongwe’s sentence was up, that is exactly what happened.

Counselling

Magistrate Nhlabatsi was provided with an official report of Shongwe's progress as the high court had ordered. After she read the report of his counselling sessions, however, Nhlabatsi said that a further period of imprisonment was necessary so that he could make more progress with his counselling work.

Having established that the extension of Shongwe’s prison time was sanctioned by the magistrate acting in terms of the high court review, Judge T L Dlamini - who heard the case in which Shongwe claimed damages - noted the next important point: Counsel acting for Shongwe conceded that Magistrate Nhlabatsi was ‘discharging a judicial function’ when she ordered that he be further detained in prison.

Constitution

‘A judge or any person exercising judicial power is immune from any action or lawsuit for anything done or omitted to be done while exercising this judicial power,’ the judge said, and quoted this section from the constitution of Eswatini: ‘A judge of a superior court or any person exercising judicial power, is not liable to any action or suit for any act or omission by that judge or person in the exercise of the judicial power.’

In this case, principal magistrate Nhlabatsi was exercising a judicial function when she ordered that Shongwe be further detained. This meant she could not be held liable for any act committed in the exercise of her judicial function.

As the defendants correctly pleaded, said Judge Dlamini, the particulars of Shongwe’s claim did not disclose a cause of action. In addition to dismissing the case, Judge Dlamini awarded costs against Shongwe.

11 months

All of which is most interesting, but reading the facts and the court's decision it seems quite a simple matter, resolved relatively easily. It is therefore not clear why the judge took 11 months to reach this conclusion and deliver the judgment.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.