From Shaik to Johnson, South African public servants exploit useless sick notes knowing doctors are final arbiters even in court.
Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, chair of the judicial commission of inquiry into criminality, political interference, and corruption in the criminal justice system. Picture: Nigel Sibanda/The Citizen
“This is one of those medical certificates, the nature of which I’ve previously said are useless, in the sense that they give no information whatsoever. It’s just one of those useless so-called medical certificates. But the bottom line is advocate Johnson is not here,” said Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga at the commission of inquiry he chairs.
He was lamenting the non-appearance of Independent Directorate Against Corruption (Idac) chief, Andrea Johnson.
This frustration was not only limited to him, but reflected the country’s collective frustration as Johnson was the ninth witness who took ill when they were due to face the commissioners.
It is now clear witnesses know that to avoid accountability, they can submit a medical certificate to the commission, which will indefinitely postpone their appearance at the inquiry.
This is nothing new in South African political and legal sphere.
The whole country knows of Schabir Shaik, former president Jacob Zuma’s financial advisor who had his jail sentence waived because of a medical condition that remains questionable to this day.
The ex-president himself dodged a two-year jail sentence due to an undisclosed medical condition in 2021.
A total of nine Madlanga commission witnesses have seemingly got the same bug when they are about to give their testimonies.
Madlanga expressed the country’s collective frustration when he called Johnson’s medical certificate useless.
His frustration was merely based on the fact it lacked details about her medical condition.
However, the country’s collective frustration comes from an apparent established pattern by highly placed public servants who use a loophole in South African law.
It rules a patient’s medical information cannot be shared by a medical practitioner without the patient’s consent unless a court orders the practitioner to disclose such information.
This section of the National Health Act was designed with the protection of ordinary citizens in mind, but has allowed public officials to avoid being held accountable and serves as the cornerstone of the “Stalingrad” legal tactic.
The tactic in South African legal terms means fighting every little thing that can be fought in court before the merits of the case can be heard.
The stalling tactic aims to exhaust the aggrieved party into abandoning their complaint, or delay the hearing of the merits of the charges indefinitely. It has worked wonderfully for some, including a former president.
This Stalingrad tactic deployed by high-ranking police and judicial officials highlights a fundamental shift in the use of medical certificates in general.
It cannot be that justice and accountability are held to ransom by unscrupulous medical practitioners, who know that their “useless” medical certificates cannot be questioned. In other words, a medical practitioner is the final arbiter, even in a court of law.
The country would have been greatly relieved if Madlanga had been satisfied with the medical certificate saying: “I have received a medical certificate from Johnson’s legal team and I am convinced there was no way she could make an appearance here today because the medical certificate submitted by her medical team has reassured me she is in no state to present herself here today.”
But that was not to be. And without that, advocate Johnson simply joined the long list of “Schabir Shaikitis” Stalingrad tactical exponents, who have dodged their chance to clear their names, or be held accountable.
