General Council of the Bar chairperson Craig Watt-Pringle says Advocate Dali Mpofu's ‘shut up’ comments to counsel Michelle le Roux at the State Capture Inquiry amounted to ‘bullying’, which he says Mpofu falsely tried to justify with racism claims.

While Mpofu has suggested that his statements that Le Roux and Minister Pravin Gordhan must ‘shut up’ were a response to SA’s history of racism, Watt-Pringle argues that the senior counsel’s conduct ‘can in no way be excused based on past racial injustices’.

He says ‘there is simply no rational connection between Mpofu SC’s conduct and racial prejudice’.

Legal writer Karyn Maughan, in a News24 report, notes Mpofu’s complaint against Watt-Pringle centres on the GCB chairperson’s criticism of his conduct during a State Capture Inquiry hearing in March, which became heated with Mpofu objecting to Le Roux asking Gordhan how he felt about being referred to as a racist by his client, former SARS Commissioner Tom Moyane.

Mpofu became visibly upset and told both Le roux and Gordhan to shut up.

Mpofu is adamant that he did nothing wrong and has laid unprofessional conduct complaints against both Le Roux and Watt-Pringle, who he says falsely accused him of ‘playing the race card’ in response to the criticism levelled against him.

Mpofu has also accused Watt-Pringle of acting out of ‘racist motive’ in ‘siding with Michelle le Roux’, an allegation Watt-Pringle says he has provided no factual foundation for.

‘Mpofu SC well knows how serious it is to accuse any person, let alone a senior colleague currently serving as chair of the GCB, of racism,’ he says.

‘Yet this accusation is recklessly made, is scandalous and made with the intention of casting doubt on my legitimate criticism of Mpofu SC’s own disgraceful conduct. For the record, the allegation is denied.’

Watt-Pringle has also questioned the impact of Mpofu’s status as a former EFF leader on his professional conduct as an advocate.

‘Mpofu SC has a long history of appearing in matters in which his clients and their causes identify closely with EFF political stances and opposition to particular individuals,’ Watt-Pringle states in response to Mpofu’s complaint against him, notes News24.

‘When counsel identifies too personally with his (or her) client’s cause, he is more likely to act at variance with his duty to the court, which is why our rules proscribe counsel from taking briefs which may embarrass them, such as when counsel may be conflicted.’

Watt-Pringle says he believes this could explain Mpofu’s ‘contemptuous reaction to what he perceived as a procedural injustice, namely being interrupted when he was making an objection’ – as well as his ‘public defiance towards Zondo DCJ’s dressing down’.

Watt-Pringle’s submission to the Johannesburg Society of Advocates also reveals that part of Mpofu’s complaint against Le Roux is that she allegedly stated in a private meeting between Zondo and the lawyers representing Gordhan and Moyane that his cross-examination of Gordhan ‘amounted to political grandstanding’.

Watt-Pringle added: This is to my knowledge an oft-mentioned sentiment both amongst our colleagues at the Bar and amongst lay people as well. Mpofu has declined to comment on Watt-Pringle’s submissions, but has previously rubbished any suggestion that his previous position in the leadership of the EFF had any impact on his conduct as an advocate.

Meanwhile, the ‘shut up’ incident and its aftermath are now the subject of investigation by multiple legal bodies – including the Johannesburg Society of Advocates, the Legal Practice Council and the Pan African Bar Association of SA.

Full News24 report (subscription needed)