Law Society not investigating complaint against Zuma lawyer

The KZN Law Society is not investigating President Jacob Zuma’s legal adviser, Michael Hulley, despite a damning affidavit deposed by National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mxolisi Nxasana, accusing him of attempting to induce him to lie – under oath – that the President had not pressured him into leaving office. According to a report by Mariannne Thamm on the Daily Maverick site, Advocate Paul Hoffman SC, of Accountability Now, lodged a complaint against Hulley. Nxasana had deposed his affidavit in a Corruption Watch and Freedom Under Law application in a civil case to review a R17m payout to Nxasana. In it Nxasana alleges Zuma committed perjury and had lied when he stated under oath that Nxasana had willingly left the office in 2015 and had not been forced to do so. Corruption Watch and FUL are seeking to have Nxasana’s departure and the payout declared unlawful. Nxasana has publicly expressed his desire to return to the crucial post as well as to pay back the R17m he received as a golden handshake. Nxasana has claimed he was hounded out of the position by allies of President Jacob Zuma when they suspected that he might reinstate the 783 charges of fraud and corruption against the President. In his affidavit, Nxasana said that it was evident Hulley had wanted him to lie under oath that he had asked to vacate the office. ‘I advised Mr Hulley that I was not prepared to make that statement since that was not what had occurred factually. I reminded him that I was an officer of this court and that I would not mislead the court,’ said Nxasana.

Hoffman attached a copy of Nxasana’s affidavit to a letter he wrote to KZN Law Society in April. Nxasana also happens to be a former president of the KZN Law Society ‘and accordingly a person whose oath should be taken seriously’, said Hoffman. Hoffman wrote that Nxasana’s allegations amount to an attempt on the part of Hulley to defeat the ends of justice, notes the DM report. ‘As the pertinent body having disciplinary jurisdiction over Mr Hulley, it is accordingly incumbent upon the disciplinary structures of the KZN Law Society to investigate the misconduct alleged in the Nxasana affidavit and to take the steps necessary to apply to have his name struck from the roll of attorneys if the affidavit is as well founded and credible as it appears to be on a prima facie basis,’ wrote Hoffman. Three months later, on 13 July, Ms N Harripersad, on behalf of the Acting Director of the KZN Law Society, replied: ‘I regret that the Society cannot assist you because it has been difficult to establish what the nature of your interest is in the matter reported by yourself against attorney Hulley & Associates, as you appear not to have been personally affected by the alleged conduct of the attorney.’ Harripersad requests that Hoffman ‘produce written confirmation from the affected party on whose behalf you are lodging the complaint, authorising you to do so’. Hoffman replied this week: ‘We are not acting of behalf of any individual complainant in this matter. We are acting in the public interest as we are entitled to do as an NGO which concentrates on accountability.' Hoffman requested the society to ‘proceed ... in the public interest. It is quite intolerable that two of your members should be at odds with each other in the manner we have described. An attorney’s word is meant to be his bond. If Nxasana is being mischievous, his stance needs to be exposed as a perjured affidavit; if Hulley is the one lying on oath, then it is not a time for your society to sit on its hands.’