The Supreme Court has stepped in to halt contempt of court proceedings against Eswatini Medical Aid Fund Principal Officer Peter ‘Samora’ Simelane and Board Chairperson Samuel ‘Sammy’ Dlamini, after the pair raised concerns about judicial bias.
The two argued that their constitutional right to a fair hearing was being violated because the judge who issued the initial order, Justice Ticheme Dlamini, is a close relative of a party with a direct interest in the dispute.
Interim Order Granted
Supreme Court Judge Nkululeko Hlophe issued an interim order yesterday, staying the contempt proceedings that were meant to proceed before the High Court under case number 633/2025.
The stay was granted after the applicants, represented by attorney Mangaliso Magagula of Magagula and Hlophe Attorneys, filed an urgent application invoking the Supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under section 148(1) of the Constitution.
High Stakes at the Supreme Court
Had the contempt hearing gone ahead at the High Court, both Simelane and Dlamini faced the possibility of committal to jail for 60 days for allegedly defying a March 25 order issued by Justice Ticheme.
| Eswatini Observer WhatsApp Channel
That order, granted ex-parte, had set aside an Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the fund’s shareholders and made consequential rulings that effectively displaced Simelane from his position as Principal Officer.
Alleged Conflict of Interest
Simelane and Dlamini argued that Justice Dlamini should have recused himself due to his close relationship with Nokuthula, who was purportedly appointed interim principal officer by a faction of the EswatiniMed board.
According to the applicants, Justice Dlamini is Nokuthula’s paternal uncle and had even performed the cultural duty of giving her away at her wedding.
They allege that this relationship created an incurable conflict of interest, particularly as some of the orders granted by Justice Dlamini directly elevated Nokuthula’s position within the fund while displacing Simelane and Sammy.
Rights and Natural Justice
In his affidavit, Simelane stated that the Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary to safeguard their constitutional rights to liberty and a fair hearing before an impartial court, guaranteed under section 21 of the 2005 Constitution.
He argued that Judge Dlamini violated two principles of natural justice:
-
Nemo iudex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause).
-
Audi alteram partem (the other side must be heard).
Simelane submitted:
“If the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it is immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at. The decision must be declared to be no decision.”
March 25 Order Disputed
The applicants said the March 25 order was obtained ex-parte by Business Eswatini, without giving them or the supporting board majority a chance to be heard.
The order set aside the AGM scheduled for March 26 and interdicted Simelane from interfering with Nokuthula, including an order restraining him from allegedly threatening her.
Appeal and Contempt Proceedings
Simelane said Nokuthula’s appointment was never effective as she did not exercise office functions in practice, while he continued to run the fund with majority support, including government directors.
They lodged an appeal under Supreme Court case number 19/2025, which suspended the High Court order. On that basis, they proceeded with the AGM — an act that triggered contempt proceedings brought by Business Eswatini.
Simelane argued that these contempt proceedings were tainted from the outset due to judicial bias. The Acting Attorney General, Mbuso Simelane, disclosed a conflict of interest and withdrew.
‘Samora’ Explains Judge’s Conflict
In his affidavit, Simelane detailed why Judge Ticheme was unfit to preside.
-
Nokuthula was not a distant relative but someone the judge had a paternal bond with.
-
After her father’s death, Justice Dlamini assumed a fatherly role, culminating in giving her away at her wedding.
-
Justice Dlamini had previously recused himself from another EswatiniMed-related case involving Nokuthula earlier this year.
Simelane insisted no impartial observer could reasonably expect the judge to rule in a matter directly affecting his niece’s interests.
Eswatini Observer Press Reader | View Here
