_____________________________________________________
COEN VAN WYK
B.Sc., B.Sc. (Hons.), B.Iuris
_____________________________________________________
Tel: 033 502 0295 P.O. Box 173
083 769 7663 NEW HANOVER
3230
Email: scch@mweb.co.za
Website: coenvanwyk.mysite.com
_____________________________________________________
9 February 2007
The Director,.
The KwaZulu-Natal Law Society,
P.O. Box 1454,
PIETERMARIZBURG.
3200
Sir,
COMPLAINT AGAINST THOBA POYO DLWATI
I annex an affidavit concerning my complaint against Ms Dlwati. I have also sent you the unsigned document by email in order to expedite the matter.
I would prefer that you send documents to me by email and not by snail mail.
I await your response with bated breath.
Regards,
COEN VAN WYK
_____________________________________________________
AFFIDAVIT
_____________________________________________________
I the undersigned,
COENRAAD HENDRIK VAN WYK,
hereby declare under oath:
1.
This affidavit must be regarded as being addressed to the Director of the KwaZulu-Natal Law Society.
2.
This is a complaint against Thoba Poyo Dlwati a council member of the KwaZulu-Natal Law Society and chairperson of he Human Resources Committee of the Society.
Since it became clear to me during numerous communications in this matter that the last-mentioned person is not referred to as Mrs. Dlwati, but that it is common practice to refer to her as Thoba, that is how I would refer to Mrs. Dlwati in what follows.
I am submitting this affidavit on the clear understanding that;
(a) it would be referred to Thoba;
(b) she would be required to respond thereto by way of an affidavit; and
(c) you would furnish me with a copy of her response.
3.
In order not to stand accused of ambushing the Law Society or employing dirty tricks, I will now include herein some information regarding my agendas and some of the contents of my letter concerning my application for the post of Director.
(a) I previously practised as an attorney in Durban under the name and style of C..H. van Wyk and Co and in that regard I have a considerable amount of unfinished business with the erstwhile members of your society, one of them being Andries Geyser, who has in the meantime, ever so appropriately, been awarded the status of a convicted criminal.
I have perused the list of council members and I have noticed that, to my knowledge, I have never had any contact whatsoever with any of them. That is not surprising since I left law practice more than 25 years ago.
(b) It would be inappropriate for me not to inform you that, as a journalist, I have, for some time, been working on “a number of articles concerning the legal shenanigans that widely prevail in the area of the administration of justice in the New South Africa, and that also prevailed in the Old South Africa”.
The words that I have just quoted in italics are quoted from a letter that I addressed to the Director, of The Law Society of the Northern Provinces at the end of August and that letter also contained the following words:
“The deplorable state of affairs that I am focussing on, and that form an integral part of the legal process in South Africa, inter alia includes the following: ...The fact that, even as I pen these words, somewhere in this country perjury (or an element of perjury) is perpetrated in civil legal proceedings by a party to the proceedings, and the perjury of the party is orchestrated by the shyster attorney of the perpetrator. And all of the mentioned shenanigans are committed with impunity.”
(c) When I decided to leave law practice, Geyser and his cronies, at the time, attempted to extort from me admissions of unprofessional conduct pertaining to certain iniquitous orders for costs that were made against me in matters in which I was acting for clients. (I refer to my letter, in that regard, to the Law Society.) I rejected the shenanigans of the Law Society with the contempt that it deserved, eventually triumphed after a protracted case in which Geyser and his cronies gave up the ghost, and I eventually left law practice with my reputation intact, in that the only court that ever decided about my suitability to practice as an attorney, is the court that admitted me as such.
(d) During 1997 I was retained as corporate legal adviser in the franchise division of Pick ‘n Pay. My contract was on a month-to-month basis for a maximum period of one year. I left after approximately 14 months.
During my tenure at Pick ‘n Pay I exposed (in a plethora of memoranda addressed to the entire management of the franchising division) numerous instances of breach of contract and criminal conduct on the part of Pick ‘n Pay companies, and on my strenuous advice, Seven-Eleven franchisees who were prejudices by the mentioned shenanigans, were compensated by Pick ‘n Pay to the tune of several million rand.
Approximately 10 months after I had left Pick ‘n Pay I was raided with an Anton Piller order in an attempt to remove from my possession evidence that incriminated Pick ‘n Pay, which included copies of the mentioned memoranda, and tape recordings that were made in the execution of my functions. That attempt failed dismally and I still have in my possession al the incriminating copies of memoranda and tape recordings.
(e) Before I started my own law firm I was associated with one Andries Geyer (a council member of the Natal Law Society at the time) in that I was employed in his law practice. As previously mentioned Geyser has now earned the status of a convicted criminal. It was during my tenure as employee of Geyser’s firm that I became aware of Geyser’s profound arrogance and propensity to engage in criminal conduct, and other unprofessional conduct (albeit not necessarily criminal). Having previously been employed by other law firms I also gained a profound insight into what difference it makes if a law firm has as a partner a council member of the Law Society. The upshot of what I observed was that as soon as I was able to leave, I resigned, left, and established my own law firm in Durban.
(f) But in the process of ridding myself of Geyser, I created an enemy. This happened because I rejected an offer of a partnership, and actually announced my intention to leave Geyser’s firm during the meeting that Geyser and his partner convened to inform me of the fact that I “made partner” (to use the US vernacular often heard on TV).
I knew from observing his demeanour, at the time, that I have made a dangerous enemy of Andries Geyser. But since I got to know Geyser well in the time that I was in his employ, I knew him truly to be a fourth division player - effective only against the weak or disadvantaged; and since I never regarded myself as weak or disadvantaged, I was not particularly bothered about Geyser’s simmering anger and hostility.
(g) So, after I had left Raulstone and Geyser, I was not rid of Geyser, because in due course he re-entered my life and presided as chairman of a kangaroo-court that was referred to as a disciplinary committee nogal. Now the particulars of the abuse that I suffered at the hands of this ruthless and callous convicted criminal, and his cronies and fellow hoods of the brotherhood (I am referring to the former council of the Law Society), is bizarre in the extreme, and is the topic of a number of complaint that I will in due course lodge with the Law Society. The mentioned shenanigans are also dealt with in a book that I will in due course submit to publishers.
Over a period of a number of years Geyser orchestrated, and presided, as Head-Honcho, over “proceedings” that concerned my alleged unprofessional conduct. In that regard I sum up, succinctly, in Comic Sans MS font, (because the word, “Comic”, is most appropriate) the following bizarre facts pertaining to two of the complaints:
Fees in a collection matter
· Geyser’s law firm legitimately charged certain fees (as sanctioned by a written directive of the Natal Law Society), in a collection matter that his firm handled on my instructions in Pietermaritzburg.
· When I charged exactly the same fees in a collection matter, Geyser and his cronies ruthlessly, relentlessly, and illegally persecuted me.
Testifying in court
· Cox gave evidence in a matter in which he was the attorney of record for the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court ruled that;
“The fact that the witness is the attorney of record for one of the litigants does of course not affect his competence as a witness in any way.”
· When I also gave evidence in a matter in which I was the attorney of record for the plaintiff, Cox, Geyser, and their cronies ruthlessly, relentlessly, and illegally persecuted me, despite the fact that the law on the point was embodied in the supreme court decision in the case in which Cox testified, and despite the fact that the decision (that was binding on Geyser and his cronies) read as follows:
“The fact that the witness is the attorney of record for one of the litigants does of course not affect his competence as a witness in any way.”
Now is that not corruption of the highest order?
(h) I therefore have a number of complaints concerning the monkey business of Geyser and his cronies and in that regard you will in due course receive further communications from me. For more information concerning my activities as an activist and freelance journalist, I suggest that you contact the Director of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, and procure from him a copy of my letter of 15 September 2006, entitled, “THE LAW SOCIETY SHUFFLE”. The letter would also give you some insight into my approach and activities as an activist and freelance journalist.
(i) As previously mentioned, I am an activist and freelance journalist and I have a number of pet subjects that I am presently pursuing, inter alia concerning the shenanigans perpetrated regarding the administration of justice. I am presently busy with the issue of crimes pertaining to perjury regularly perpetrated with impunity in civil proceedings. In that regard I recently addressed a letter to the Director of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, and he reacted with indignation to my contention that law societies tolerate the criminal conduct of perjury perpetrated by its member attorneys and referred to what I had stated as being “absurd”. I decided to call his bluff by formally lodging a complaint against Ross and Jacobs, a prominent law practice in Pretoria, which also happens to have a member of their practice on the council of the Law Society. My complaint concerned a case reported in the March 1998 edition of Noseweek from which it clearly appears that the mentioned attorneys orchestrated the perjury that their client (ABSA) committed in a High Court case, approximately a decade ago. Despite the fact that the Law Society was aware of the article, it did not take any action concerning the subornation of perjury perpetrated by Ross and Jacobs - that is - it did not do so until l came on the scene and laid a complaint against the attorneys.
Ross and Jacobs missed the deadline of 15 December 2006, imposed by the Law Society, to respond to my complaint, and while I am at a loss to understand why the Law Society has not proceeded forthwith (in the light of the absence of a reply from the perjury specialists) with an application to strike the culprits off the role, the Law Society has allowed them until 8 February to respond.
Some time ago I also did an investigation concerning the pilot licence scam and had my special report published in SA Flyer. I did so while death threats were made against my journalistic sources and some of them left the country; while the police endeavoured to place some of my other sources (which included a senior police superintendent, and his entire family) in witness protection programs.
I also investigated the security measures employed at Johannesburg International Airport (as it was known at the time) and I had a report published in SA Flyer that exposes the nonsensical peculiarity that, while passengers and their baggage are subjected to stringent security screening procedures, at the same time a vast amount of cargo, that will accompany the passengers on the flight, is not screened at all.
(j) You and the council members of your society, must however be quite clear about one thing and that is that, at this juncture, with the exception of Thoba, I have no quarrels (that I am aware of) with any member of your Society. However, should any of the mentioned persons associate themselves with the deplorable conduct of their predecessors, or display recalcitrance in dealing with the issues that I report to you, then the gloves come off.
4.
I will now move on to the high jinks of Thoba
5.
I responded to an advertisement concerning the position of Director of the Law Society of KwaZulu-Natal and duly delivered my application papers to the offices of Thoba Poyo Dlwati.
6.
The advertisement, to which I responded, states that the interview date is 29 January 2007. I therefore phoned the Law Society on Friday 26 January 2007 in order to establish where and at what time the interviews would be conducted. I was told to speak to Thoba.
In due course I spoke to Thoba when she returned my earlier call to her. She phoned me at approximately 14h10 on the particular afternoon. By that time I had already established that the interviews would be conducted at the Society’s offices and when I asked Thoba at what time I need to report for the interview, she asked me whether I had been short-listed, and in due course made the astonishing statement that the Law Society would be contacting me if I have been short-listed, but if I have not been short-listed, then the Law Society would not contact me but would write to me.
Now I must say that I find it rather cold-hearted that an applicant for a position is made aware of the fact that interviews for the position would be conducted on a particular day, but he may only receive notice (after the date of the interview) that he would not be required to attend. That is however an issue that would receive attention some time in the future, and it does not form part of this complaint.
7.
I informed Thoba that I do not know whether I have been short-listed. When I asked her whether she has the short-list, she undertook to revert to me. She did so shortly before 15h00 on the same day, informing me that I have not been short-listed.
So, there you have it. Shortly before 15h00 on a Friday am I informed that I must not come to the party on the very next working day, a Monday. Had I not made enquiries then I may still have been ignorant about that fact, as I pen these words.
8.
I must now record, most emphatically, at the outset that none of Thoba’s appalling conduct described in this affidavit was caused by any lack of courtesy, on my part, towards her, and I was impeccably courteous toward her until, as I mention later herein;
(a) she in effect told me that I am wasting her time; and
(b) she replied with the words, “I don’t think that I need to respond to you”, to my following request: “I’m asking you ...I’m addressing a very courteous request to you. Please can I have the reasons? Can you fax it to me?”
I may also mention that in this matter few things would please me more than to get an affidavit by Thoba in which she disputes, under oath, what I have just stated, and what I am about to state. So, in that regard I say to Thoba, “Make my day, madam!”
9.
I also record my profound indignation concerning the insulting conduct to which Thoba exposed me. I did not do anything to deserve the abuse that I suffered from Thoba. I applied for the position of Director of your Society, only to be insulted, humiliated and aggravated by a conceited woman that was appointed as chairperson of the committee that dealt with my application. I find that state of affairs to be rather shocking.
10.
In dealing further with the bizarre sequence of events that culminated in the abuse to which Thoba subjected me, I refer back to paragraph 7 and state that after Thoba had informed me of my short-listing misfortune I asked her why I had not been short-listed.
The account that follows appears to be rather disjointed. And it is indeed, the reason being Thoba’s disjointed helter-skelter approach to my request for the information that I required from her, and her conflicting statements.
11.
Things really started going awry when I asked Thoba why I have not been short-listed. Her response was that when the email comes through to me then I can ask for the reasons, and she added that she "thinks" that the committee can then respond. She was obviously referring to the KZNLS Human Resource Committee, which she chaired. Any further reference herein to “reason” or “reasons” is intended to be to the reason why I was not short-listed in this matter.
At that juncture I got the sneaky suspicion that her choice of the word, “think” could be a rather ominous sign in that “think” clearly pointed to the possibility that the committee (that she chairs) may not regard it as important to respond to my enquiry. Given the cavalier treatment to which Thoba subsequently exposed me, it became clear that that may have been exactly what she meant, given the fact that in due course she told me that she doesn’t "think" that she needs to respond to me. That happened when;
(a) I told her that I am addressing a very courteous request to her to let me have the reasons, and whether it could be faxed to me; and
(b) her reply was that she does not “think” that she needs to respond to me.
It must be borne in mind that everything that transpired between Thoba and myself had to do with only one issue; and that is my endeavours to procure the reason why I had not been short-listed.
12.
But soon thereafter I had to contend with Thoba’s “procedure” tosh. That happened when she once more told me that I am going to receive a communication advising me that I have not been short-listed. She said, (as she put it ever so eloquently and conceitedly) “from that stage ... let’s follow procedure”. In that regard I comment as follows:
(a) I did not need a fax or an email in which I am informed that I had not been short-listed because Thoba had already told me that I had not been short-listed.
(b) Her reference to “procedure” that needs to be followed is as cryptic as some of her other utterances, and I still have no idea what procedure she had in mind.
(c) However, my response to her “procedure” twaddle was, in effect, inter alia to deny that there is a “procedure” applicable to my quest for information, and to state that if she is saying that it is the procedure that she had created, then I am not bound by that.
13.
It was clear that Thoba was becoming increasingly desperate in her endeavours to avoid giving me the reason why I had not been short-listed, when she made a statement that was so disjointed that it is impossible to relate what she had said. Her garbled utterances appeared to indicate that she wants something to be in writing and she added that she thinks it’s safer that way. She explained what she meant with “safer that way” by saying that what she wants in writing (whatever that may be) she wants in order to avoid somebody saying that she said something that she did not say. I kid you not! Her reference to something that needs to be in writing can therefore only be to something that depicts the reason why I had not been short-listed. But if that is indeed what she was referring to when she said, “I think it is better that we do it in writing”, then the simple answer to her expressed desire regarding “writing” is, that she already has the information in writing because, she told me during our conversation that the reasons had been put in writing.
However, her safety concerns in this matter made no sense whatsoever because, although I initially asked her to tell me why I had not been short-listed, I would obviously have been delighted to receive the information in writing, as is clearly evidenced by my request that it be faxed to me. That is clear from my following words: “Please can I have the reasons? Can you fax it to me?”
14.
But I was to endure much, much more monkey business from this august council member of the Law Society and chairperson of the KZNLS Human Resources Committee who (as will in due course appear from what follows herein) deliberately left me with the misconception that she is the Vice President (nogal) of the KwaZulu Natal Law Society.
It all started when I asked her whether something (I was referring to the reasons) had already been drafted in writing, and she replied in the affirmative.
When I then asked her whether she can read it to me, she said something that was not all that clear, quite unfathomable, and that could either mean;
(a) that she had sent the written reasons concerning my short-listing calamity to the Law Society; or
(b) that it is the usual practice to send that type of document to the Law Society.
The words that she used were, “It’s sent to the Law Society”.
15.
But thereafter, and within seconds after Thoba had said the following about the reasons: “It’s sent to the Law Society”, she stated that the committee does not send the reasons to the Law Society. That happened when, in an attempt to make some sense of her conflicting and disjointed statements concerning the reasons, I asked her the following question: “So you haven’t sent them (I was referring to the Law Society) the reasons?” and her perplexing response was: “We don’t send them (She was also referring to the Law Society) the reasons. The committee knows the reasons.”
So there you have it; Thoba said about the reasons that;
(a) “It’s sent to the Law Society”, and soon thereafter;
(b) “We don’t send them the reasons”. and to add to the confusion;
(c) “The committee knows the reasons.”
Now it must be borne in mind that the quoted words are those of an attorney who is let loose on the unsuspecting public, and who is also a councillor of the Law Society (nogal!). Pretty scary stuff indeed!
Not only does the fact that she made conflicting statements regarding an issue cause deep concern, but the relevance of her statement, “The committee knows the reasons”, is also perplexing and needs to be explained.
16.
I point out that none of the possibilities mentioned in paragraphs 14(a) and 14(b) would explain Thoba’s response to my question as to whether she can read to me the written reason for my short-listing anguish. I say so for the following reasons:
(a) If the document depicting the reason for my short-listing misery had been sent to the Law Society, then Thoba could simply have read to me from her file copy of the document.
(b) On the other hand, if the mentioned document was still to be sent to the Law Society, then Thoba could have read to me from the original document.
The truth of the matter is that;
(i) I verily believe that Thoba’s shenanigans were merely mischievous endeavours aimed at frustrating my quest for the information that I am legally and morally entitled to; and
(ii) in so far as Thoba’s statement was intended to convey to me that the document had already been transmitted to the Law Society, that was proved not to be true when I established the true facts from the Law Society.
But I hasten to add that what I have just stated in this paragraph is not intended to labour the point that Thoba could have read the reasons to me. It is merely intended to expose the conflicting statements that Thoba made regarding a very simple matter.
17.
In dealing with Thoba’s bureaucratic antics, it is first of all necessary to record the following:
(a) Thoba told me at the beginning of our second telephone conversation on 26 January 2007 that I had not been short-listed. (Refer to paragraph 7 herein.)
(b) During an earlier conversation on that day she told me that, if I had not been short-listed, then the Law Society would write to me. (Refer to paragraph 6 herein.)
(c) So, since Thoba had already told me that I had not been short-listed, I was already painfully aware of that fact and did not need a letter to inform me accordingly. Her reference to a letter that would inform me that I have not been short-listed, is therefore mischievous.
(d) When I thereafter asked her why I had not been short-listed she said that when the written communication comes through to me, I could ask for the reasons. (Refer to paragraph 11.) For her, once more to refer to a letter, that would inform me of the fact that I had not been short-listed (after she had already informed me of that fact just minutes before), evidences wickedness on her part.
Now she needs to explain why, only after I had received something in writing from the Law Society, could I ask for the information that I required. Since there is no logical reason for that fact, it became clear to me that Thoba was niggling me with some form of bureaucratic baloney.
(e) During the discussion that thereafter ensued regarding the information that I required, Thoba exuded some gibberish about something that should be done “in writing” (Refer to paragraph 13 herein.) and we talked about the reasonableness of a request for the information that I wanted. But then she once more came up with nonsense to the effect that I am going to receive a communication advising me that I have not been short-listed.
At that juncture I still succeeded in biting my tongue, but it required a concerted effort on my part. After all, why should she once more raise the point that I am going to be informed in writing by the Law Society that I had not been short-listed. I already knew that, and she knew that I knew that, because she had just told me minutes before that I had not been short-listed. The only reasonable inference that san be drawn from this woman’s mentioned conduct is that she intended to frustrate me with her incoherent bureaucratic claptrap. In that regard it must me borne in mind that all that I wanted was the reason for my short-listing fiasco, and she kept on telling me that I would in due course be informed of the fact that I had not been short-listed.
(f) The fact that what she was doing was intentional, and that the intent was malicious, appear clearly, not only from what I had already stated, but also by her following pompous words (uttered in response to my request for the information that I requested): “from that stage ... let’s follow procedure”. Despite her reference to a “procedure” she failed to explain the “procedure”, or its source.
Now the events that I have just described prompted me to conclude, and say to Thoba, that she obviously wants to be bureaucratic about the matter. It was therefore my intention to tell her that all I am asking from her is that if she has got the reasons, whether I can have them. But I only got as far as, “if you’ve got the reasons” when she rudely interrupted me with a statement that I am “taking her time”. It was clear that what she was conveying to me (in her particular brand of English) was the message that, in her opinion, I am wasting her time.
18.
Her snooty arrogance caused me to lose my rag and I asked her who the hell she is, to which she in due course duly responded in a similar fashion.
At that juncture I was erroneously of the opinion that she is the vice president of the Society and therefore said to her that she thinks that because she is vice president, she can come with this high-horse attitude towards me. I was amazed later to learn that Thoba is indeed not the vice president of the Law Society. Given the fact that she made no attempt to set the record straight, I verily that to be improper conduct on her part.
19.
I thereafter made it clear, ever so assertively, that I have been very courteous in my request to her to let me have the reasons. She never placed in dispute the fact that I have been courteous (and she would be well advised not to do so now). I thereafter reiterated that I am addressing a very courteous request to her to let me have the reasons, asking her whether she can fax it to me.
She did not respond. After a long pause I assumed that she is no longer on the line but when I said, “hello”, she said that she does not think that she needs to respond. I contend that the following is a fair reflection of the actual words that she used: “I don’t think that I need to respond to you”.
What arrogance! How clearly indicative of the fact that she has no intention of disclosing to me information that I am legally and morally entitled to receive.
20.
And that is when I hit the bottom in my endeavours to extract from Thoba the information that I required, or any cogent or meaningful response, or conduct.
What I also find disconcerting is the fact that Thoba succeeded in provoking me to such an extent that I raised my voice toward the end of the conversation; used the word “crap”; and terminated the conversation unilaterally. I do however not apologize for my mentioned conduct because I am not obliged to do so under the particular circumstances, given the deplorable conduct of this individual, and the abuse and provocation to which she subjected me. But I am however perturbed by the fact that her conduct provoked me into behaving in the manner that I did. I do not make a habit of raising my voice during such telephone conversations and terminating the conversations unilaterally.
Incidentally, I love using the word, “crap” when it is applicable. I find it not only to be suitably expressive, but also charged with a certain emotional element. I make no excuse for using the word because it is the word that Judge of Appeal Harms once used while presiding in proceedings in London. And what’s good enough for Harms, is good enough for me!
21.
THE NITTY-GRITTY OF THOBA’S MISCHIEF
In this paragraph I will discuss the crux of the matter concerning Thoba’s tomfoolery, as evidenced by the contents of this affidafit.
(a) Thoba informed me that I have not been short-listed and when I asked her for the reason, she was clearly obstructive when she said that I would receive a fax or email informing me that I have not been short-listed, and on receipt thereof, I can ask for the reason (that is the reason that I had just asked her for).
So, Thoba’s decree stipulated that, albeit that I had already orally requested the reasons, I should once again do so after I had received a fax or email in which I am informing that I had not been short-listed.
In that regard it is my contention that her conduct evidences her profound arrogance, and an obstructive disposition, that clearly constitutes unprofessional conduct.
(b) She said that when the communication that I had referred to in the previous paragraph, comes through to me, then I can ask for the reasons, and she added that she “thinks” that the committee can then respond. That created the impression that the committee may decide not to respond, as she did as head-honcho of the committee, when her reaction to my request to her to let me have the reasons was, “I don’t think that I need to respond to you”.
My position on the matter is that she is obliged to respond since I am entitled to the information that I had requested. Her failure to respond therefore not only constitutes a breach of her duties in this matter, but also impudence that should not be tolerated from an attorney; or a council member of a law society; or chairperson of the HR committee in this matter. In my opinion both the mentioned breach and impudence constitute unprofessional conduct.
(c) She made conflicting statements concerning the reasons saying that “It’s sent to the Law Society”, but also saying that the committee does not send the reasons to the law society.
At least one of the mentioned statements constitutes a lie and therefore evidences blatant unprofessional conduct.
(d) She, ever so arrogantly, imposed a “procedure” that she required me to follow in my quest for the reasons
I contend that she does not have the power or authority to prescribe the type of procedure that she attempted to force onto me, and the insolence that her conduct evidences, constitutes a profound unprofessional disposition.
(e) Despite the fact that, by her own admission, the reason for my shot-listing woes in this matter had already been drafted in writing, she failed or refused to furnish it to me.
Her mentioned conduct is unreasonable, inexcusable, and therefore unprofessional.
(f) While I was in the process of telling her that all that I require from her is that, if she has the reasons, whether I can have them, she rudely interrupted me and told me that I am wasting her time.
The mentioned conduct is rude, presumptuous, and therefore unprofessional.
(g) She replied with the words, “I don’t think that I need to respond to you”, to my request, “I’m asking you ...I’m addressing a very courteous request to you. Please can I have the reasons? Can you fax it to me?”
My questions were perfectly reasonable and germane, and were addressed to her in a courteous manner. Her irrational response was unprovoked and is completely irrational. I am of the opinion that her shocking conduct can only be symptomatic of a deep-seated problem (perhaps a profound hatred that she harbours for certain white Afrikaners).
What is of further importance is that her words, “I don’t think that I need to respond to you”, can by no stretch of the imagination be seen as a rational response to my questions, “Please can I have the reasons? Can you fax it to me?”
Her words, and the context in which they were uttered, clearly create the impression of pure malice oozing out. After all, her words, “I don’t think that I need to respond to you”, uttered in response to my questions, “Please can I have the reasons? Can you fax it to me?” is blatantly aimed at treating me with disdain, and connects perfectly with her attitude towards me, as suitably described by the words “who the hell are you”. I mean, after all, who do I think I am to expect a reply from the eminent Thoba and to waste her time with questions.
(h) When, at a particular juncture, I was erroneously of the opinion that Thoba is the vice president of the Law Society and therefore said to her that she thinks that because she is vice president, she can come with this high-horse attitude towards me she made no attempt to set the record straight.
I verily believe that to be improper conduct on her part.
(i) When her snooty arrogance caused me to lose my rag and I asked her who the hell she is, she in due course duly responded in a similar fashion.
Assuming for the moment that my utterance is unwarranted (an issue that I would deal with later herein), I nevertheless contend that it is improper for her to respond in a similar fashion, for reasons that I would now stipulate here below:
(i) If my utterance was indeed unwarranted, then so much more would it be unwarranted for Thoba to respond in a similar fashion. I say so for the following reasons:
At the time Thoba was acting as an attorney, who is also a councillor of the Law Society, and chairperson of the HR committee of the Law Society that was dealing with the matter under discussion. She was bound (and is still bound) by the rules that apply to her profession. And one of the rules of conduct that binds Thoba is the following stipulation of the International Code of Ethics, to which the Law Society subscribes:
“Lawyer shall at all times maintain the honour and dignity of their profession.”
And if all things were equal (and they clearly were not –as I will explain in due course!) for Thoba to respond in a similar fashion to my, “who the hell are you”, does nothing to “maintain the honour and dignity of their profession.”
In dealing with my stipulation, “if all things were equal” and my assertion that “they clearly were not”, I state the following:
My question, (“who the hell are you”) was asked in response to her indefensible statement to the effect that I was wasting her time. My question was therefore very germane concerning the issues. I mean, after all, who is this woman, and who does she think she is to tell me that I am wasting her time because I enquire from her (the chairperson of committee that had resolved not to short-list me) about the reason for that fact. The question is also germane concerning her position that she does not think that she needs to respond to my following questions, “Please can I have the reasons? Can you fax it to me?”
Thoba, on the other hand had no reason to address a similar question to me.
(ii) Let us assume (for the moment) that somewhere in the universe there exists a “tribunal” that has the power to adjudicate on the issue of whether the questions that Thoba and I uttered are “proper” (for lack of a better word) and the decision goes against us, then we have the following situation:
· I, a mere ordinary mortal, a member of the public, a humble journalist uttered the improper (as ruled by the tribunal) question, “who the hell are you”
My defence, pursuant to the “tribunals” ruling would be that I was provoked by Thoba’s rude response to my innocuous, proper, and perfectly germane endeavours to procure from her the reason why her committee had not short-list me. The mentioned rude response being Thoba intimating that I am wasting her time.
. Thoba, on the other hand, an attorney, a council member (nogal) of the Law Society, and the chairperson of the committee that dealt with my application, had no reason to respond to my improper (as ruled by the tribunal) utterance in a similar fashion with an improper (as ruled by the tribunal) utterance. She simply had no reason to ask me a similar question. And even if she had, being an attorney, councillor, and chairperson, she should have behaved.
Furthermore, if the question was improper (as ruled by the tribunal) then I have yet to discover how I am going to be punished. But if the question was improper (as ruled by the tribunal, then the Law Society should punish Thoba forthwith.
But, on the other hand, there is indeed a tribunal that can adjudicate on whether, under the circumstances, it was improper for Thoba to respond in a similar fashion to my question, “who the hell are you”, and that tribunal is the disciplinary function of the Law Society.
Before leaving the “who the hell are you”, issue behind, I wish to state that, as regards the word “hell”, in so far as one or other fuddy-duddy can regard it as crass, it does not detract from the cogency of what I had stated.
So, I do not apologise for using the word, “hell” and assure Thoba that if she does not show remorse for her nonsense, and the Law Society does not act appropriately against her, then the word will become more meaningful in this matter. Rest assured of one thing. I will not relent! If death threats in my pilot licence scam exposé did not deter me, then nothing that Thoba and her likes may throw at me would do so.
I therefore contend that Thoba is a person that is not fit to practice as an attorney, for reasons that are clearly set out in this affidavit, and I submit that disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against her without any delay.
----------------
DEPONENT
The deponent has acknowledged that he knows and understands the contents of this affidavit which was signed and sworn to before me at on this day of 2006 in compliance with the provisions of the legislation and the regulations applicable to the administration of an oath.
------------------------------------
COMMISIONER OF OATHS
FULL NAME:
DESIGNATION:
No comments:
Post a Comment