By Zweli Martin Dlamini

MBABANE: Charity Simelane,the Secretary General(SG) of the Law Society of Swaziland(LSS) has,on behalf of the organization for legal practitioners, accused Chief Justice(CJ) Bheki Maphalala of usurping the powers of the Executive Arm of Government by appointing the Commission of Enquiry into allegations of corruption within the Office of the Master of the High Court.

Responding to this Swaziland News on Wednesday afternoon,the Secretary General said,an independent and impartial inquiry should be established to investigate the allegations.

This comes after the Chief Justice who stands accused of corruption within the Master of the High Court’s Office announced a compromised team of Judges who are allegedly loyal to him to investigate the allegations.

“The law Society is concerned about the appointment of the Commission of inquiry by the Chief Justice.An independent and impartial inquiry is required to investigate the allegations of corruption within the office of the Master of the High Court.The appointment compromises the independence of the judiciary.The role of the Judiciary is the adjudication of disputes.Such disputes may include disputes that may arise from the Commission of inquiry.Furthermore, the Chief Justice has usurped the powers of the executive as the Commissions of Enquries Act 1963 in section 3 provides that the function of appointing a commission of inquiry vests in the executive (a Minister). Untold damage is done to the Judiciary if it is involved in matters that are reserved for the executive. The judiciary should always be impartial and independent and not be involved in powers which are the exclusive preserve of the executive.This compromises its independence and impartiality and would prevent it from exercising its proper Constitutional role,that of the administration of justice”,said the Secretary General of the Law Society of Swaziland(LSS).

Simelane further mentioned that,if disputes arise from the Commission appointed by the judiciary, the judiciary cannot be expected to play a role of an independent and impartial arbiter because it was party to the investigation. 

“The public will be denied their Constitutional right to have their disputes decided by an impartial and independent Court”, she said.