Motata house-crash victim appalled that ‘false’ k-word allegation ‘saved drunk judge’

After the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) headed by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng gave “racist” and “grossly incompetent” retired Judge Nkola John Motata a reprieve from the spectre of impeachment by pronouncing him guilty of misconduct, and not gross misconduct, his victim feels very unsatisfied.

Richard Baird, who has been central to the entire matter, said he felt sick to his stomach and said it was yet another slur against him, since Motata wasn’t given the maximum sanction owing to Baird having allegedly used the k-word on him.

Baird has always denied this.

The commission announced in Midrand on Thursday that Motata should pay a fine of R1,152,650 that is equivalent of 12 months of his current salary, which should be payable in full over a period of not more than 24 months.

The JSC said the fine should be paid to the South African Judicial Education Institute which provides education for judicial officers.

Its decision comes after a ruling by the judicial tribunal that found Motata’s conduct at the scene of a car crash into Baird’s house in 2007 was racist and lacked integrity.

The tribunal’s report also found that Motata’s conduct at the scene and the “remarks he made [to Baird] were racist and thus impinged on and were prejudicial to the impartiality and dignity of the courts”.

Although the tribunal recommended to the JSC that Motata be removed from office, in line with Section 177(1)(a) of the Constitution that deals with the conduct of judges, the JSC rejected this.

Motata was found guilty in 2009 by the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria of drunk driving and fined R20,000.

This after he crashed into a wall at Baird’s house in Johannesburg in 2007 in his luxury Jaguar while drunk.

He previously admitted to making remarks to Baird, such as: “No Boer is going to undermine me … this used to be a white man’s land, even if they have more land … South Africa belongs to us. We are ruling South Africa.”

Baird believes justice is yet to be done.

“This does not end here; I will not rest until I am cleared. The JSC is supporting a false claim of racism and it cannot be sustained,” Baird said.

“The judgment is appalling in its naked attempt to assist Motata,” Baird said. “I was not racist, and there was absolutely no proof presented that I was.”

The k-word allegation was used to prevent Motata being impeached, since he was allegedly “provoked”.

Motata’s “dishonest defence” as Baird puts it, was one of the most frustrating factors.

“At a stage of my cross-examination, the defence asserted that ‘if Judge Motata was to give evidence, he would state that he was not drunk’,” Baird said.

“This was a false statement made, knowing it to be false and which was not corrected by Motata at any stage during the very lengthy drunk driving trial.

“It was made with the intent to mislead the trial court. Such unethical behaviour, so lacking in truthfulness and integrity, is gross misconduct for an officer of the court, and even worse for a judicial officer.”

“It does not surprise me as Motata has been assisted every step of the way die to his affiliation, and recently the composition of the JSC was questioned for good reason.”

Baird noted in many free countries’ judges appointed and disciplined the conduct of their peers.

“The JSC committee and tribunal are just such peers with the similar background as Motata,” Baird said.

“His peers on the tribunal found his conduct to constitute gross misconduct, and that is all that matters.”

In April 2018, the chairperson of Motata’s judicial conduct tribunal, KwaZulu-Natal Judge President Achmat Jappie, recommended to the JSC that “the provisions of section 177(l)(a) of the Constitution be invoked”.

The section declares “a judge may be removed from office only if the Judicial Service Commission finds that the judge suffers from an incapacity, is grossly incompetent or is guilty of gross misconduct”.

The tribunal noted “the lack of integrity in the manner in which Judge Motata allowed his defence to be conducted at his trial in our view is incompatible with or unbecoming of the holding of judicial office,” Jappie noted.

Mogoeng stated Motata’s conduct, which led to his conviction and sentence by the criminal court, amounted to misconduct.

”More specifically, the majority of the JSC found that the racially loaded utterances made by Judge Motata were unbecoming of a judge, notwithstanding the majority’s acceptance that his responsibility was diminished by his proven intoxication and provocation of the alleged use of the k-word by the owner of the house,” Mogoeng’s statement read.

“In the result, Judge Motata is found guilty of the lesser offence of misconduct and not gross misconduct.”

The recommendation of the tribunal was subsequently, “with respect,” rejected by the JSC.

The JSC also took issue with how JSC member Advocate Izak Smuts, as an alleged instigator of the complaint against Motata, had chaired the deliberations over Motata and not disclosed his involvement and recused himself.

(Background reporting, News24)

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.