Lawyer Mangaliso Magagula has accused Registrar of the High Court, Nosipho Mazibuko, of breaching the constitutional principle of separation of powers, by seeking to sue other government departments in her official capacity.
Magagula made the assertions in court papers filed in response to an application brought by the registrar under case No. 1194/2025. In the matter, the registrar seeks to intervene as a party in a case involving Magagula’s release from His Majesty’s Correctional Services.
Magagula argued that the registrar’s attempt to intervene in an ongoing litigation was inappropriate as she is part of the Judiciary and therefore, constitutionally limited to adjudicating disputes not becoming a party to them.
The lawyer said the registrar’s actions amounted to “perversion of justice.”
“It is ironic that the registrar, a civil servant employed by government, is suing another government department in her official capacity regarding the performance of its functions,” stated Magagula.
Also Read: I DID NOT FUND PAC’S INDIA TRIP – ASHRAFF
“This represents one arm of government suing another, including government’s principal legal advisor,” he said in his papers. He further stated that the attorney general, under Section 77 of the Constitution, is responsible for representing government in court.
Magagula stated that the Judiciary was constitutionally mandated to interpret and apply the law, the Legislature enacts the laws and the Executive enforces them. He argued that by initiating legal action, the registrar purported to enforce laws, something that falls squarely under the Executive.
“In seeking to sue government departments, the registrar is violating the principle of separation of powers,” he said.
Magagula also emphasised that the registrar, in her administrative role, must remain neutral and should not be involved in litigation unless she is being sued in connection to her official duties.
He said in such cases, she was ordinarily represented by the attorney general. He further contended that the registrar’s involvement in this case threatened the impartiality of the judicial process.
“This violates the principle of natural justice, nemo judex in causa sua; no one should be a judge in their own cause,” he said.
He cited Section 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing, noting that it encompasses all stages of litigation, including the issuance of papers and the enrollment of matters.
“The registrar has a vested interest in the outcome of my matter and yet is also responsible for its administrative management. Justice is not done and certainly not seen to be done where the registrar is a litigant in a matter she oversees,” Magagula argued.
He submitted that the registrar was not authorised to institute such an application and lacks the necessary legal standing. The application for leave to intervene should be dismissed with costs on an attorney-and-client scale due to what he termed an abuse of court process, he said.
High Court registrar is biased – Magagula
Registrar of the High Court Nosipho Mazibuko has been accused of bias by opposing lawyer Magagula’s legal action.
This is because she did not intervene when Magagula’s constitutional rights were allegedly violated by Judge Titus Mlangeni. In court papers, Magagula argues that the registrar failed to act when Judge Mlangeni assumed multiple conflicting roles during proceedings against him; being a complainant, investigator, witness, prosecutor and judge.
Lawyer Magagula claims Mazibuko was now seeking to enforce an order issued by Mlangeni, even though she remained silent during the alleged breaches of due process by the judge. Magagula stated that he submitted a written application requesting a fair hearing, where he could confront and cross-examine his accuser. He noted that this application was denied, even though the original matter had been concluded 10 months prior to Judge Mlangeni initiating proceedings against him. “The belated attempt by the registrar to intervene in my case and oppose the relief I seek, confirms bias against me,” Magagula submitted.
He questioned why the registrar was suddenly concerned about the absence of opposition, when Justice Mlangeni previously excluded the director of public prosecutions (DPP) from the process.
He argued that if the registrar had been concerned about proper administration of justice, the judge should have referred his complaint to the DPP, in line with Section 21 of the Constitution.
Magagula submitted that Mazibuko’s current stance contradicts her earlier silence, as she cannot now object to the absence of the DPP in defending a matter that was not properly prosecuted in the first place.
