Africa-Press – South-Africa. Limpopo lawyer Kevin Maluleke, who publicly levelled serious allegations against some judges, has been struck off the roll of advocates.
In the unopposed striking off application the Limpopo Society of Advocates lodged in the Limpopo High Court in Polokwane, Maluleke was described as “dishonest” and someone who was “not fit” to practise.
In its papers, the society listed a chronology of events, which dated back to 2005, when Maluleke first entered into a contract with a firm of attorneys for articles of clerkship.
He terminated the contract for unknown reasons before moving to another law firm on 17 January 2006. In August that year, his principal at the law firm initiated disciplinary proceedings against him for theft and intimidation. He was eventually dismissed.
Maluleke then tried to enter into a third contract of articles of clerkship with another law firm on 5 June 2007. However, during the screening process, it was found that he was “not a fit and proper person to enter the profession”.
The Law Society of the Northern Provinces then initiated disciplinary proceedings against him on the basis of his history, and he was found guilty of the charges against him in August 2007.
But that didn’t stop him. Maluleke applied to be admitted as an advocate at the Limpopo High Court in Thohoyandou, but concealed his previous misdemeanours. He was admitted on 6 December 2007.
In its papers, the Limpopo Society of Advocates argued that Maluleke might have committed perjury by concealing his history.
It submitted:
In addition, it mentioned complaints from members of the public and “spurious” public allegations Maluleke had made against Judge Madala Mphahlele and Judge President Ephraim Makgoba, which were eventually dismissed by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC).
Maluleke had also organised a march in which he accused the judiciary of being corrupt, with “no milligram of evidence ever presented of any corruption by the judiciary”.
On Tuesday, Judges Natvarlal Ranchod and Brian Mashile ordered that Maluleke’s name be struck from the roll of practising advocates by virtue of the stipulations of Section 7 of Act 74 of 1964.
Their reasons are expected to be delivered later.
When approached for comment, Maluleke first denied knowledge of the decision.
However, after he was presented with the order, he said it was based on a law that had been repealed. He said he intended to appeal.
“That whole thing is a joke. That is the long and short of it, and that joke is the subject of an appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal or the ConCourt will just throw the court order away,” Maluleke said.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
