I. Mr Morake, who is a magistrate at the Lichtenburg Magistrates Court, was appointed as magistrate on 15 October 2001 after serving as a teacher.

2. Mr MoraLe appeared before court in Lichtenburg on 8 June 2005 after he was arrested on the same day on two charges of theft. It is alleged that he stole monies which were handed to him in his official capacity on two occasions at the office by members of the public which monies were to be paid over to other members of the public during the periods between 27 June 2003 and 1 July 2003 and again between 23 April 2004 and 14 March 2005. The amounts involved are R500.00 and R5 000.00. He was remanded on bail of R300.00 to 4 July 2005 and then further remanded to 9 September 2005 for trial. He denies the charges.

3. An investigation has been instituted by the Commission, through two magistrates attached to the Secretariat of the Commission; it has established and confirmed the above facts. The Commission is satisfied that, from this investigation, reliable evidence exists indicating that the allegations against Mr Morake are of such a serious nature as to make it inappropriate for him to perform the functions of a magistrate while the allegations are' being investigated.

4. In its letters of 14 June 2005, the Magistrates Commission requested Mr Morake to show cause why a decision to provisionally suspend him from duty, pending the outcome of an investigation into his fitness to hold office, should not be taken. A copy' of his response received on 20 June 2005 is included for your attention.

5. At its meeting held on "6 August 2005. the Commission considered the matter and resolved in terms of section 13(3)(a) of the Act, to advise you to provisionally suspend Mr MoraLe from office; with pay, on the grounds set out below.

5.1 The Commission holds the view that, without anticipating the outcome of the investigation into Mr Morake's fitness to hold the office of magistrate, the allegations against Mr Morake are of such a serious nature that they would justify his removal from office, should he be found guilty of misconduct when so charged.

5.2 The allegations of theft bring into suspect the integrity and honesty of the accused. It would be inappropriate for a person of such a questionable character to sit on the Bench. The public's confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined, and the image of the judiciary damaged. Moreover, he committed the offence over a period of time, as opposed to a once-off aberration.

5.3 Grounds for suspension with pay: Mr Morake has not yet been found guilty. He appeared in Court for the first time only on 8 June 2005. There is as yet no evidence that he is contributing towards the delay of the finalisation of his criminal trial. The Commission has therefore recommended suspension with pay. The issue of suspension without pay may, however, be considered in future depending on further developments; for example, whether he is deliberately frustrating the finalisation of the criminal case against him.

6. I concur with the view of the Commission that the existing evidence against Mr Morake is of such a serious nature that it would justify his removal from office, should he be found guilty of misconduct when so charged.

7. This Report is hereby submitted for Parliament's consideration in terms of section

13(3)(c) of the Act.

Signed at Cape Town on 16 September 2005

MRS B S MABANDLA, MP