The National Association of Democratic Lawyers (NADEL) issued a statement announcing a favourable legal outcome. This was after the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria delivered a judgment in favour of NADEL, granting an urgent interdict preventing the Legal Practice Council (LPC) from re-running the elections for the Board of the Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund (LPFF Board). NADEL described the judgment as one that champions the core values of transparency, fairness, and due process within the legal profession.

In October 2023, the LPC ran elections for the LPFF Board, to which legal practitioners casted their votes electing candidates of their choice to be on the Board. After the election closed, the LPC took the position that the procedures and methodology it had followed, in conducting the election, were based on its own incorrect interpretation of r 46 of the Legal Practice Council Rules. In January 2024, the LPC released a notice informing the profession that because of the irregularities with regard to the procedure that was used for the elections, they would not be releasing the result of the said elections.

Perturbed by the LPC’s decision, the applicants brought an application to have the LPC’s decisions to not tally and to re-run the election, reviewed and set aside. While the matter was on application on 8 July 2024, the LPC published a notice informing the legal fraternity that nominations for candidates for the re-run election would be open from 10 July 2024. In terms of its preliminary timetable for the new election, voting will close on 20 August 2024 and results will be announced by 28 August 2024.

The High Court said that NADEL – as the first applicant – instituted the proceedings on behalf of its members. The second applicant was legal practitioner, Mvuzo Notyesi, President of NADEL, member of the Executive Committee of the second respondent (the Board of the LPFF), and was also a candidate in the October 2023 election. The High Court pointed out that despite being cited as the second respondent, the LPFF Board has aligned itself with the first and second applicants. The High Court added that subsequent to the institution of the application, the Black Lawyers Association brought an application to be joined as the third applicant.

The High Court further pointed out that on the eve of the hearing of the application, the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) also sought leave to intervene as a further applicant.

In its argument NADEL described this as a contemptuous ploy to ‘force the re-run election through’ and to have the present application dismissed due to lack of urgency (the relief sought having become moot).

The High Court said that adding insult to injury, the LPC afterwards filed an answering affidavit in which it, rather obtusely, informs the court tasked with deciding whether to interdict the call for nominations, setting of a date and re-run of the election, that the call for nomination is a fait accompli and that ‘the LPC is not going to change its decision on the impugned elections’ and that ‘there will be a re-run of the election process’.

The High Court said that the LPC’s overarching argument is that, because its interpretation of r 46(1) is correct, the October 2023 elections were invalid and as such it was entitled to abandon that election in favour of a re-run election. It was therefore particularly disconcerting that the LPC could not provide a clear and unambiguous answer to the very simple question: Where, within its statutory framework, is it granted powers to declare elections illegal and to decline to comply with its obligations in terms of rs 46(15),(16) and (17)? Despite being pertinently questioned in this regard by the court, no direct answer was provided. Instead, its submissions vacillated from vague generalised references to its role as overseer of the legal profession to a reliance on the doctrine of legality.

The High Court made the following order:

1. The application is enrolled and determined as a matter of urgency pursuant to the provisions of r 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court and any non-compliance with the ordinary rules and practices pertaining to forms, service and enrolment is hereby condoned.
2. The Black Lawyers Association is granted leave to intervene and is hereby joined as the third applicant to the proceedings in respect of Part A and Part B of the notice of motion.
3. The Law Society of South Africa is granted leave to intervene and is hereby joined as the fourth applicant to the proceedings in respect of Part A and Part B of the notice of motion.
4. Pending the finalisation of the review application brought by applicants in Part B hereof, the first respondent is interdicted and prohibited from –

4.1.       announcing an election date for the election of members to the second respondent; and

4.3.       conducting elections for the appointment of members to second respondent.

5. To the extent that the first respondent has, prior to this order, taken any steps in relation to 4.1 and/or 4.2 of this order, it shall –

5.1        within 24 hours of handing down of this order, using the same medium used in calling for nominations and/or announcing the date of the election, publish the terms of this order; and

5.2        immediately cease to call for or accept nominations of candidates for the aforesaid election.

6. The first respondent shall pay the costs of the first and second applicants on an attorney-own client scale.
7. The first respondent shall pay the costs of the third applicant on an attorney-own client scale.
8. The first respondent shall pay the costs of the second respondent on an attorney-own client scale.

NADEL in its statement said the judgment does not only halt the re-run of the elections but also reinforces NADEL’s commitment to ensuring that all processes within the profession are conducted with the utmost fairness and transparency. ‘This decision is a monumental step towards restoring trust and accountability in our professional institutions,’ the statement read.

The President of NADEL, Mr Notyesi stated that ‘NADEL is elated by the court’s decision, which is a victory not just for our association but for the entire legal profession. This judgment upholds the bedrock principles of transparency, fairness, and legal due process. It sends a clear message that our profession will not tolerate any deviations from these essential standards.’

NADEL added that its success was bolstered by the support and collaboration of several allied legal associations that joined us in the urgent application. That the associations’ involvement exemplified the unity and shared commitment within the legal community to uphold the highest standards of our profession. NADEL pointed out that the collective action highlights the strength and solidarity of our legal community, working together to advocate for the foundational principles of our legal system.

Mr Notyesi further stated that ‘NADEL is also beaming with pride to have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund, the Law Society of South Africa, and the Black Lawyers Association. Their support and our unity exemplify the collaborative spirit that will drive meaningful transformation within the legal profession. Together, we will ensure that it operates with integrity and accountability.’

‘NADEL continues to advocate for reforms that promote ethical standards, protect the interests of legal practitioners, and enhance the trust placed in our profession by the public. We thank our members, our legal team, allied legal associations and supporters for their unwavering commitment to these ideals, and we look forward to working collaboratively with all stakeholders to build a more transparent and equitable legal system.’

Kgomotso Ramotsho Cert Journ (Boston) Cert Photography (Vega) is the news reporter at De Rebus.

This article was first published in De Rebus in 2024 (Sept) DR 7.