A Free State judge has failed in his latest attempt to secure a permanent stay of prosecution in a criminal case involving allegations of theft and, alternatively, money laundering linked to Road Accident Fund (RAF) payments.
The matter dates back to the period when Bloemfontein Judge Mpina Abednego Mathebula was still practising as an attorney. He approached the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) after the Free State High Court previously dismissed his application to halt the prosecution.
Mathebula, together with his former candidate attorney, faces charges in a regional court, including theft, alternatively fraud, and money laundering. At the time, he practised under the name Uys Mathebula Attorneys in Sasolburg. The alleged offences are said to have occurred between July 2012 and May 2018.
According to the State, an elderly woman instructed Mathebula’s firm to pursue a RAF claim on behalf of her grandson, who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident. The claim was settled, and the High Court made the settlement an order of court, awarding the child R2.2 million plus costs.
The order required that the funds be paid into the firm’s trust account for the exclusive benefit of the child. However, the State alleges that Mathebula failed to retain the money in the trust account as instructed.
In addition to the R2.2 million award, the RAF allegedly made interim payments to the law firm amounting to more than R900,000. The total sum paid to the firm is said to be R3,142,089, of which only R111,500 was paid to the complainant.
The State further claims that R1,258,110.13 was recovered from the former candidate attorney through a settlement reached after the complainant instituted civil action against him. Based on calculations by an expert witness, a balance of R1,329,092 allegedly remains unaccounted for.
It is alleged that Mathebula unlawfully transferred funds from the firm’s trust account into his business account. These transactions form the basis of the charges of theft, alternatively fraud, and money laundering.
Mathebula previously made representations to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seeking the withdrawal of the charges, but both the initial and subsequent requests were declined. He then turned to the courts, arguing that the decision to prosecute stemmed from a misunderstanding of how attorney and client fees are structured.
He further contended that the prosecution infringed on his right to dignity, caused reputational harm and subjected him to public embarrassment. He also argued that defending himself in the criminal proceedings had resulted in significant financial costs, rendering the prosecution unfair, unlawful and unconstitutional.
The SCA, however, found that Mathebula had failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting judicial interference in the pending criminal proceedings. As a result, his application for a permanent stay of prosecution was dismissed.
Facebook Comments