A bail condition, and the question of who it belongs to
Legal commentary
A senior officer facing charges applied to vary a bail condition. The record describes the condition plainly: "there is a bail condition that says they must never go to the office." The investigating directorate opposed the variation, and counsel placed on record that the condition "was never requested by either, not requested by the prosecutor, at least in open court." That provenance matters. A bail condition is imposed by a court, ordinarily on the prosecution's application, and the prosecuting authority is the party that defends it. An investigating directorate is not the prosecuting authority, so its standing to marshal opposition to a variation is a live question the record does not settle. The opposing affidavit goes beyond opposing the relief. It records that the applicant "does not have a top secret security clearance, which is a requirement for her to be employed as senior manager in the Crime Intelligence Division," that there are "no exceptional or compelling needs or circumstances for her to return to Crime Intelligence," and that "her repeated applications have been denied." It reaches an assertion about state of mind: "I suspect that Madondo has an ulterior motive for wanting to be authorised by the court to return to Crime Intelligence environment." A second issue sits underneath. The same papers state she "is still gainfully employed as the National Commissioner has reposted her." The employer placed her in a post whose stated requirement she does not meet, which produces the circumstance now relied on to resist her return. Counsel also described how the supporting evidence was assembled, saying the investigator had "gone to SAPS to go solicit an affidavit from General Matlou," and that "there might be others that he also solicited to go resist that application." Whether that is ordinary litigation preparation or something further is contested on the record and is not resolved by the evidence extracted so far.
In plain terms
An officer charged with offences is out on bail. One of her bail conditions stops her from going to her own workplace. She asked a court to change that condition, and the investigators fought to keep it. Counsel pointed out something odd about where the condition came from: on his account the prosecutor never asked for it in open court. The affidavit opposing her also argues she should not be back at Crime Intelligence because she lacks the top secret clearance the job requires. The awkward part is that her own employer, the National Commissioner, put her back in that post. So the police service created the situation that is now being used as a reason to keep her away. Counsel further suggested the investigator went to the police to obtain a supporting affidavit from a senior officer, and possibly approached others too, in order to resist her application. None of this has been decided. What the record shows is a fight over a restriction whose origin is itself in dispute.
Cited claims
Supporting context