A member of the South African National Defence Force who missed out from being promoted to the rank of  lieutenant because of two prior minor offences – a fine for negligent driving and a reprimand for improper parking – turned to court to have the decision by the SANDF overturned.

While the SANDG Act requires that an officer must never have been convicted and imprisoned without the option of a fine, Frans Matjila told the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, that his transgressions were minor and he only received a fine. The SANDF, on the other hand, regarded it as major offences. 

Matjila is a non-commissioned officer and holds the rank of flight sergeant. He joined the SA Air Force in 1998 and advanced through the ranks of airman, corporal, sergeant, before being promoted to flight sergeant.

His role is that of a technician in the Air Force Mobile Deployment Wing (Ground Electronics Section). He completed numerous courses while serving in the Air Force, including an officers’ forming course.

His rank changed from flight sergeant to candidate officer and he was transferred to Air Force Base Zwartkop to serve as a technical officer, where he is currently employed. He worked with the rank of candidate officer while awaiting a commission as a lieutenant. However, the appointment as a lieutenant was never granted in light of his minor offences. 

Dissatisfied with the outcome, Matjila now applies for a review of the instruction that he revert to the substantive rank of flight sergeant and for an order that he be reinstated as a candidate officer with full retrospective effect.

The SANDF justified its decision and pointed out that Matjila committed prior offences where he bumped his car  into a pole, for which he was fined R1,500,00. The second is for parking a vehicle on the side of the road to buy food, for which he was reprimanded.

It was argued on behalf of the SANDF that these amounted to “multiple serious offenses” and it pointed out that in November 2022, the Chief of the SANDF issued Instruction 4, aimed to provide guidelines for managing members with multiple and serious military and/or civilian offences. 

The court agreed with the SANDF’s counsel that the purpose of the instructions is to guide the management of members with multiple and serious military and/or civilian offences when decisions are made regarding the commissioning of members as officers.

However, the court disagreed that the offences mentioned in Matjila’s case, are, without further enquiry, to be regarded as “serious.”  It also found that Matjila was never given the opportunity to address or express his view regarding the SANDF’s application of the guidelines to his application for permanent appointment as an officer.

The court said it is not convinced that the offences committed by Matjila are so serious that it would disqualify him from being promoted. It commented that the SANDF seemed to interpret the Chief of the SANDF’s instruction as a blanket rule that, if broadly applied, would disqualify someone in Matjila’s position. The court said such conduct constitutes an arbitrary decision and instruction, and the decision and its outcomes were made in breach of the law. 

The specific circumstances under which the alleged offences were committed were entirely overlooked. The offences did not constitute disqualifying factors, the court said in overturning the SANDF’s refusal to promote Matjila.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za

Source link