Around 13:40 on Tuesday, while Police Minister Fikile Mbalula was riffing at a press conference in Pretoria, Hawks head (or not?), Mthandazo Berning Ntlemeza’s “voodoo” lawyers filed a notice of motion with the Pretoria High court seeking to restrain Mbalula, “his employees and/or agents” from “preventing, hindering, obstructing, intimidating, harassing or in any manner the Applicant [Ntlemeza] from entering the office of the National Head of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation situate [sic] at 1 Promat Building, 1 Creswell Road, Silverton, Pretoria.”

Ntlemeza also wants the court to stop Mbalula from “interfering unlawfully” with the performance of his official duties and from making public statements that embarrassed and undermined The Bern.

Over and above this, Ntlemeza wants his official vehicle and cell phone – both part of his condition of service – to be returned “forthwith” and for Mbalula to allow him to remain in his official post “on terms and conditions not less favourable to those which existed prior to the granting of the order by the Full Court on 12 April 2017” and pending the outcome of Ntlemeza’s appeal.

Oh, and Ntlemeza also wants Mbalula to pay the costs of the application.

Providing background to his founding affidavit, also filed on Tuesday, Ntlemeza argued that on the advice of his legal representatives he is still seeking to challenge two judgements delivered by Judge Elias Matojane in the Shadrack Sibiya matter, that he is dishonest and guilty of impropriety. Ntlemeza maintains that these “pronouncements” were made without him ever being given a fair hearing. He acknowledges that an application by himself and former Minister of Police, Nathi Nhleko, for leave to appeal a further March 17, 2017 judgement setting aside his appointment was dismissed on April 12.

But he is now seeking relief in terms of section 18(4) (iv) of the newly-enacted Superior Courts Act, which applies to court orders taken on appeal and when, in exceptional circumstances, execution orders may be granted.

“Once the aggrieved party excersises the automatic right of appeal to the next highest court, then the enforcement order is automatically suspended pending the outcome of such an appeal,” states Ntlemeza adding that the day after the court had on April 12 granted the full order enforcing its main judgement (that he was illegally appointed) Ntlemeza’s legal team filed an Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

In other words Ntlemeza believes that the filing of his Notice of Appeal has automatically suspended the April 12 order of the court. Some legal experts, and the Minister of Police – have, however, argued that Ntlemeza can’t be reinstated to a position he was never legally appointed to in the first place.

You get the drift.

With the legal technicalities out of the way Ntlemeza proceeds, in his affidavit, to tell the court that since the April 12 judgement, Mbalula “has been repeatedly stating in the national television that I am no longer employed as the National Head of the DPCI because the Full Court has dismissed my application for leave to appeal”. He had been advised, however, that these statements are “erroneous” and that the court does not have the jurisdiction to remove him from office.

The matter, he added is “extremely urgent”, indicating Ntlemeza is itching to get back to work.

He then provides an insider’s view of what went down on Tuesday when he “reported for official duty after I have been away on vacation leave.”

“I resumed official duties but at approximately 13h00 the First Respondent [Mbalula] came to the headquarters and held a press conference. The First Respondent lambasted me in front of journalists, stating that he does not recognise me as the National Head of the DPCI because the judgement of the Full Court is operational and he is executing it.”

Things, he says “escalated” when Mbalula “in his bellicose speech and military attitude stated that I should return the official vehicle and cellular telephone” and that the Minister “went to the extent of issuing instructions to his employees to apply for a warrant for my arrest for being in unlawful possession of State property”.

Ntlemeza contacted his attorney who had then advised him to hand over the goods.

“I did so reluctantly because First Respondent had indicated that the vehicle should be seized from me forcefully upon sight.”

It was clear, opined The Bern, that Mbalula was “on the warpath and has evinced a settled determination not to recognise me”. He added that he was concerned that Mbalula “as a very senior official of the State, has no respect for legal process”.

On Tuesday Nltemeza said his attorneys had written to Mbalula about his “weird” conduct and explaining once again that he [Ntlemeza] was still the Hawks boss.

“The First Respondent has not ceased in his escapades. I do not know why he had adopted a hostile approach towards me because the erstwhile Minister of Police was satisfied with my services until he was transferred to the Department of Public works”

No kidding.

The matter was urgent, Ntlemeza said, because the prevailing work conditions he was being subjected to were “hostile to me”

“I have no vehicle and am unable to attend my planned meetings.”

And then the woundeness.

“What is most hurtful are the gratuitous, vilifying remarks the First Respondent continues to make about me in the media. This is damaging not only to me personally but also to the imagine [sic] of the DPCI. A restraining order is necessary to stop the First Respondent from his abrasive escapades.”

Mbalula was, charged Ntlemeza, “causing a constitutional crisis”.

“I have served my country as a policeman loyally, patriotically and with distinction over a period in excess of thirty five years. I do not deserve to be made an object of contempt and ridicule, particularly by a very senior official of the State like the First Respondent. I am in the afternoon of my career as a policeman and would like to exit the South African Service gracefully”.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

Mbalula and the other respondents named, including Lieutenant General Yolisa Matakata, the Helen Suzman Foundation and Freedom Under Law have until May 2 to oppose the application and file their answering affidavits. Stay tuned. DM

Photo of the original hourglass by Tor Andrea Torhaug via Flickr