Pietermaritzburg magistrate Divesh Mootheram was on Tuesday found guilty of crimen injuria for calling his boss, chief magistrate Mpho Evelyn Monyemore, a ‘corrupt black b***h’.

In a hard-hitting judgment Eastern Cape-based regional magistrate Eric Vellam rejected Mootheram’s denial that he had uttered these words to fellow magistrates Variska Premrahj and Ashin Singh on April 11,2017, and ruled the words were both insulting and a ‘racial slur’ directed at Monyemore.

He said Mootheram had conceded that he was upset and angry that day and that he had ‘used vulgar language’ while denying that he spoke those particular alleged words.

“Against the formidable evidence of the state, the accused’s version falls to be rejected, as I do,” said Vellam.

He explained the words had been spoken in what amounted to ‘much ado about nothing’ after Mootheram had objected to the presence of an unknown individual in Singh’s office with files which Mootheram believed to be personal files of magistrates while Singh claimed they were ‘inconsequential documents’ that had been lying around for four years and required filing.

Vellam said in his testimony Mootheram could not name a ‘single magistrate’ whose personal file he saw in the office that day, including his own.

Vellam added that the evidence showed that Monyemore was not at her office that day, that the words were uttered in her absence and that she had ‘heard about them’ later.

He said the fact that Monyemore gave contradictory evidence as to where and from who she had heard about the alleged utterances was ‘clearly a memory issue’ since she was testifying in 2019, almost three years after the incident.

She gave evidence that the matter ‘went viral’ and even reached the ears of her family in Pretoria.

“When she heard about it she felt her dignity was slipping through her fingers.”

Citing case law that describes the crime of crimen injuria as an ‘act of unlawful and serious violation of the dignity and privacy of another’ he said the offence can be committed by way of ‘word or deed’.

In this case, he said Mootheram was ‘persistent’ in his utterance of the words as he repeated them more than once and he was satisfied that viewed subjectively and objectively they were a serious ‘assault’ on Monyemore’s dignity.

He likened the fact that the words had been said in Monyemore’s absence to the actions of ‘peeping Toms’ whose victims were unaware of them until they were subsequently informed.

This constituted an impairment of their dignity despite their absence of awareness, he said.

Even though there was no ‘direct (legal) authority’ to support it, it would be irrational if this were not also applicable to the present case, he found.

State witness disputed Monyemore’s testimony

Vellam rejected the evidence of defence witnesses including magistrate Bob Narayansamy, who disputed Monyemore’s testimony that he was the person who told her about the alleged utterances and claimed to have initially made a false written statement to that effect ‘under duress’.

Vellam said Narayansamy was an ’embarrassment to his office’, his evidence was ‘wishy washy and a waste of time’ and said he was ‘rightly jettisoned as a state witness’.

Referring to the defence testimony of another magistrate, Stephen Collins — which the defence submitted proved the ‘acrimonious relationship’ that existed between magistrate Singh and Mootheram — Vellam said Collins’ evidence related to events that occurred from 2018 and was ‘irrelevant’.

He further said Collins clearly had an ‘axe to grind’ with Monyemore as he had admitted being unhappy ‘with some of her appointments’.

Regarding the evidence of Leandre Goliath (the then chief magistrate’s PA) that she had heard ‘loud, angry voices’ in the tearoom and Singh’s office that day but had not heard the alleged words uttered, Vellam said Goliath’s testimony ‘lent credence’ to that of Premrajh, who testified she had tried to ‘calm’ Mootheram when he uttered the offensive words.

Vellam said Goliath had left Mootheram and Premrajh together and ‘was in no position to say what the accused may or may not have said during her absence’.

The case was postponed to April 4 for evidence prior to sentencing.

Defence advocate to lead medical evidence concerning Mootheram

Defence advocate Shane Matthews said he intends to lead medical evidence concerning Mootheram’s health including his diagnosis with post traumatic stress disorder, depression, diabetes and other issues. He will also lead evidence of a specialist psychiatrist who has been treating Mootheram.

Mootheram’s wife, Verushka, herself a regional magistrate, told The Witness they ‘don’t accept the findings’ and will ‘definitely appeal’ against her husband’s conviction.