The Labour Practice Council (LPC) has defended its decision to charge advocate Dali Mpofu SC, asserting that its National Executive Committee (NEC) will not be used to settle political disputes between professional bodies.
This statement follows a stern warning from the Pan-African Bar Association of South Africa (PABASA), which wrote on April 17 to LPC Chair advocate Pule Seleka SC.
PABASA cautioned the LPC to resist efforts to weaponise disciplinary proceedings against Mpofu SC for narrow personal or political reasons.
Recently, the LPC announced charges against Mpofu SC, accusing him of bringing the legal profession into disrepute.
PABASA expressed deep concern, describing the charges as “spurious” and aimed at intimidating Mpofu SC and unjustly tarnishing his reputation.
In his response dated April 23, Seleka clarified the LPC’s position, stating, “The National Council’s Executive Committee has considered the contents of PABASA’s letter and, at the outset, we wish to clarify that we consider it inappropriate for any professional body to seek to intervene in a pending disciplinary matter in the manner suggested in your letter.
“To do so would be deviating from the LPC processes and procedures, which are predicated on due process and designed to ensure that the LPC acts without fear, favor, or prejudice.
“Your letter also appears to be predicated on a misunderstanding of the functioning of the LPC’s disciplinary processes in general and the role of the National Council in particular.”
He further addressed perceptions that the LPC is being used as a political tool.
“Before dealing further with that aspect, we presume that it is not your expectation for us to respond to the NEC’s perceptions that the LPC is being used as a tool to target black practitioners and marginalise PABASA. That perception is wholly incorrect.
“What we substantively perceive to be relevant from your letter, for my immediate response, is what we discern to be an implied understanding on your part that the charges initiated against Mpofu SC were instituted by the National Council of the LPC and that, as the chairperson of the National Council, I might be able to intervene and prevail over the Council to reconsider its position. That understanding, too, is not correct.”
Seleka SC explained the LPC’s disciplinary process, emphasising the role of provincial bodies
“The Legal Practice Act (LPA) enjoins the National Council to establish disciplinary bodies — such as investigation committees and disciplinary committees — which conduct investigations into complaints and institute disciplinary proceedings where warranted, as required by the LPA.
“These proceedings occur at the provincial level, and the disciplinary bodies derive their functions, powers, and duties solely from the LPA.
“The National Council is neither empowered to interfere in the functions of these disciplinary bodies nor influence their outcomes. Nor would it be appropriate for the National Council to do so.
“Decisions of disciplinary bodies should ultimately be referred to the National Council for implementation, especially when they involve recommending suspending a practitioner or removing them from the roll.”
He reaffirmed the LPC’s commitment to integrity and independence.
“You can rest assured that the current National Council is committed to the rule of law, transparency, and ensuring that practitioners observe high standards of professional ethics.
“This Council will not be used as a tool to fight political battles or skirmishes between professional bodies, much less to target black practitioners.”
The LPC’s response underscores its stance that disciplinary processes are meant to be impartial and free from political interference amid growing concerns about the nature of the charges.
Politics
