Booysen SAPS saga: Continued

In July 2007 SAPS alleged that Riaan Booysen, in the scope of his duties as a police officer, had committed fraud, corruption and perjury. Those allegations have still not been tested.

The dispute between the parties has been the subject of:

• A part-heard disciplinary hearing that had been postponed 12 times.
• An internal appeal.
• Two unfair labour practices arbitrations before SSSBC.
• Three urgent applications before the Labour Court.
• An urgent application in the High Court.
• An appeal to the Labour Appeal Court.
• Latest two reviews in the Labour Court.

The merits have still not been decided because the only issue is still whether the disciplinary hearing should proceed.

Five psychiatrists and psychologists have all agreed that Booysen suffers from post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and major depressive disorder and that he is unfit for duties as a police officer and should be medically boarded.

They differ on whether he is fit to ‘withstand the rigours of the disciplinary hearing; and if so, when it could continue’.

The disciplinary hearing was initially convened on 31 October 2007 before SAPS Commissioner Yvonne Badi (“Badi”) and after a number of interventions she ruled that Booysen was fit to continue with the hearing.

The ruling was challenged in an urgent application in the Labour Court and rejected on jurisdictional grounds by Cheadle AJ on 12 February 2008 (see Booysen v SAPS [2008] 10 BLLR 928; (2009) 30 ILJ 301 (LC).

On 1 October 2010 Cheadle AJ’s decision was overturned by the Labour Appeal Court and referred back to the Labour Court for a hearing on the merits (see Booysen v Minister of Safety & Security [2011] 1 BLLR 83; (2011) 32 ILJ 112 (LAC)

But in the interim SAPS had terminated Booysen’s employment in terms of the deeming provision in regulation 18(5)(a)(ii) of the SAPS regulations (“the Regulations”).

Booysen filed an internal appeal chaired by Director D Joubert who overturned Badi’s decision.

After outlining the background referred to above Justice Steenkamp states:

“[4] SAPS, purportedly represented by Provincial Commissioner Mzwandile Petros, has applied to this Court under case number C307/2009 to review and set aside the Joubert decision. Booysen persists in his application under case number C 60/2008. Although no longer urgent, Booysen seeks to have the ruling by Commissioner Badi that he was fit to participate in the hearing; and her subsequent ruling that he is deemed to have been discharged, reviewed and set aside. These two applications have been consolidated (by Lagrange J on 21 October 2011) and both applications were argued before me on 30 November 2011”.

Finally Justice Steenkamp set aside the rulings of Badi and reinstated Booysen:

Conclusion

“[103] The Joubert decision in case number C307/2009 is not open to review. The effect of this judgement is that Badi’s rulings of 6 February, 2 June and 12 August 2008 are overturned.

[104] Booysen must therefore be reinstated retrospectively to the date of his dismissal with full benefits”.

Order

“[114] In the result, I rule as follows
114.1 The application for review in case number C307/2009 is dismissed.
114.2 The respondents in case number C 60/08 and the applicant in case number C307/2009 are ordered to pay Booysen’s costs jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved; such costs to include the costs of two counsel where so employed”.