Iuze Mukube
Two former senior officials have taken the Roads Authority (RA) to court for allegedly failing to comply with its own disciplinary policy.
Johan Ludwig Boois and Richard Masule Milinga seek urgent redress in relation to RA allegedly failing to comply with its own disciplinary policy to the detriment of the two, as it failed to appoint a chairperson for their appeal.
They argue that the appointment of the second respondent, who was assigned to chair their appeal, was in violation of the procurement policy at RA.
The matter stems from the two being found guilty of certain offences and not on some in an internal disciplinary proceeding on 25 November 2025. A sanction of dismissal was then imposed against the two on 23 February 2026, of which they lodged an appeal 24 February 2026.
The appeal was delayed and only heard on 16 March 2026, and the two contended that the appeal hearing was not convened by the appeal chairperson, but rather by the Divisional Manager: Human Capital, who has no authority to convene such hearing.
They also contended that there was no chairperson appointed, which is why the divisional manager of the human capital usurped the powers of the appeal chairperson.
They also contended that the public entity failed to convene the appeal hearing within the 14 days as required by the policy. Therefore, the two are entitled to be reinstated to their previous positions and anything else would be a manifestation of injustice.
They also pointed out that there were inconsistencies in the findings, including a charge where the chairperson allegedly stated during mitigation that he had not found an employee guilty, while the written findings reflected a guilty verdict.
The two claimed that the internal audit unit acted on instructions from the Chief Executive Officer instead of reporting functionally to the Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee, as required by policy.
They also alleged that members of the Board and its committees issued directions during the process.
In their application in the High Court this week, the two executives are seeking a stay of the public entity’s appeal process that was heard before the second respondent, pending the finalisation of the matter. They also seek reinstatement to their previous positions, should they not succeed in their relief for the stay of the appeal hearing.
The two contend that RA failed to appoint a chairperson for their appeal and assigned someone to chair it in violation of the procurement policy at the public entity.
Alternatively, RA failed to appoint a chairperson until after the period of convening the appeal had lapsed, and that it had the appeal hearing convened by someone without authority to convene such hearing.
They contend that they lodged the appeal in accordance with and within the timelines stipulated in RA disciplinary policy, and its failure to comply should, as the appeal period lapsed, entitle them to be reinstated to their previous positions.
Basically, they want an order setting aside the appointment of the second respondent, JN Tjitemisa N.O, to chair their appeal, and in the event RA should persist with the appeal process, “an interdict preventing them from dismissing us, pending the appeal.”