Opinion: Public outrage must never override due process

Public outrage must never supersede the principles of due process, according to legal expert Rebone Tau. When we allow emotions to dictate the application of the law, we risk creating a society that functions on popular opinion rather than on the laws established by our constitution. Recent debates surrounding the suspension of Julius Mkhwanazi, an employee of the City of Ekurhuleni, and Councillor Muzimuni Ngiba, who was incarcerated while still receiving a salary, have often caused confusion due to their apparent similarities.

However, the legal and contextual frameworks governing these two individuals are fundamentally different, and this distinction must be recognized.

Mkhwanazi is currently undergoing an ongoing disciplinary process, and his suspension is precautionary, meaning he remains fully remunerated during this period. Ngiba, on the other hand, was a councillor serving a political party and his incarceration presents a completely different legal question. The legal frameworks governing employees and elected officials are not identical, and applying the same remedy to both cases would be misguided.

Due process is crucial to ensure that everyone is treated equally before the law until all investigations are concluded. Allowing individuals to bypass due process based on public sentiment can lead to a system where due process is abandoned whenever there is political pressure to punish. While public frustration may be understandable, particularly when there is a history of arrests, an arrest is not a conviction, and individuals cannot lose their rights simply because there is public pressure.

It is also important to acknowledge that municipalities must act within the confines of the law and seek legal advice when necessary to avoid potential litigation. Collective agreements, employment contracts, and constitutional principles all play a role in determining how municipalities can respond to disciplinary matters. While it may be tempting to believe that the law should move at the speed of public outrage, it cannot.

The rule of law must be upheld, regardless of whether we agree with the outcomes or the outcomes make us uncomfortable.

In conclusion, municipalities must be allowed to complete their disciplinary processes, and the consequences, whether punitive or not, must follow according to the law. The same standard must apply to councillors, and any actions taken must be legally defensible. Ultimately, we are all bound by the law as employees, councillors, political parties, and municipalities alike.