Latest news with #AppealsTribunal
The Star
30-07-2025
- Politics
- The Star
Casoojee's plea to Justice Minister regarding his partenal struggle
Sifiso Mahlangu | Published 1 hour ago In an emotional and public plea, Cape Town businessman Asif Casoojee has called on Justice Minister Mmamoloko 'Nkhensani' Kubayi to urgently intervene in what he describes as a deeply painful legal struggle that has kept him separated from his children for more than a year. Casoojee accuses attorney Kaamilah Paulse, who represents his ex-wife, of manipulating the legal system to isolate him from his children and deny him meaningful access. Once married to Paulse, Casoojee says their post-divorce custody dispute has turned into a campaign of alienation, with him being systematically removed from his children's lives. Speaking to the media outside the Western Cape High Court this week, Casoojee described how his rights as a father have been eroded through what he calls calculated legal tactics. 'I am pleading with Minister Kubayi to look into this case. I have followed the law and respected the court process, but I am being punished for wanting to be a father. The system has been used to silence me.' Casoojee claims Paulse has overstepped her role as attorney, taking on functions beyond legal representation, such as appointing herself as the children's main school contact. Despite paying school fees and supporting his children financially, Casoojee says he is treated like an outsider. He recounted being denied entry to a Father's Day event in 2024, saying the school told him that Paulse was registered as next of kin. 'That day broke me,' he said. 'I was told I could not participate in an event made for fathers. My children saw that. They saw me being turned away.' Earlier this year, the Legal Practice Council's Appeals Tribunal found prima facie evidence that Paulse had committed professional misconduct. According to The Star and IOL , the case includes allegations of parental alienation, as well as an alleged attempt to condition Casoojee's access to his children on a R300,000 payment. The matter has since been referred to the LPC's Disciplinary Committee. Civil society organisations such as Fathers for Equality and Right to Justice have stepped in to support Casoojee's call for intervention. They argue that his case is not an isolated one, but part of a larger problem where fathers are stripped of rights due to unchecked legal practices. 'Too many fathers are being erased from their children's lives not because they are unfit, but because the system enables legal manipulation,' Casoojee said. 'This is not just about me. It is about the thousands of fathers who quietly suffer while their children grow up believing their dads abandoned them.' Attorney Kaamilah Paulse, through her law firm Herold Gie Attorneys, has denied any wrongdoing. The firm has stated it intends to challenge the tribunal's findings and maintains that Paulse acted lawfully and ethically throughout. Still, Casoojee remains determined. 'I want my children to know I never walked away. I was kept away,' he said. 'Minister Kubayi, please help fathers like me reclaim our rightful place in our children's lives.'
The Star
15-06-2025
- The Star
Heartbreak on Father's Day: Asif Casoojee denied access to his children during ongoing legal battle
As fathers around the world were honoured on Sunday, Johannesburg father and businessman Asif Casoojee marked yet another Father's Day alone, cut off from his children and emotionally drained by what he calls a 'systemic failure to protect fathers' rights. 'For the fourth consecutive year, Casoojee was not allowed to spend the day with his two children, nor attend the Father's Day event hosted at their prestigious private school on Friday — an institution he continues to fund despite being denied access. 'I wasn't even invited,' Casoojee told The Star 'The school told me the next of kin is the lawyer Kaamilah Paulse and that I wasn't welcome. It's not just heartbreaking. It's dehumanising.' Casoojee places the blame for his exclusion squarely on attorney Kaamilah Paulse, who represents his ex-spouse in an ongoing legal dispute that has spanned over four years. 'She's made every effort to alienate me from my kids. Calls are ignored, emails bounce back, and I've been locked out of school records and events. And still, I pay the fees,' he said. 'I'm their father, not a ghost.' His allegations are supported by a March ruling from the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC), which found prima facie evidence of misconduct by Paulse. The tribunal found that a protection order obtained against Casoojee was potentially granted without proper service, and flagged Paulse's alleged interference in his parental relationship — actions they described as amounting to 'parental alienation.' The tribunal also cited Paulse's alleged involvement in a private WhatsApp group where confidential financial and business information about Casoojee was discussed, despite no legal basis for such disclosures. In response to claims about child alienation, Paulse denied any wrongdoing and defended her role through her legal team. Speaking to The Star through her attorneys at Herold Gie, Paulse said: ' We point out that the statement contained is unsubstantiated, vague and lays no factual basis for the allegations made. We record that Ms Paulse denies the allegations, as stated by you'. Her firm added that the LPC Appeals Tribunal had ''not made any final findings'', but had merely referred the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee for further examination. Despite the legal assurances, Casoojee says the real damage is not to reputations, but to children.'My son asked me once, 'Why don't you come to my school anymore?' And I couldn't answer. Because the truth is — I'm being blocked.' He is now petitioning the High Court to have Paulse removed from the matter, citing conflict of interest and alleged unethical conduct. He also plans to ask the court to reinstate full parental access and to review the circumstances under which communication and visitation were restricted. Legal experts say his case is far from unique. 'There is an emerging pattern in the South African family law system where fathers feel increasingly sidelined,' said family law advocate Lesedi Mokoena. 'While the law recognises equal parental rights, the practical application can lean heavily in favour of one parent, often the mother.' Mokoena added that the legal profession must take its constitutional obligation to act in the best interests of children more seriously, noting, 'We cannot allow attorneys to become agents of division between parents and their children.' Casoojee echoed that sentiment.'This is about more than one day a year. It's about a lifetime of moments that are being stolen. I'm not perfect, but I'm a father — and I'm fighting to stay in my children's lives.'As the legal process unfolds, Casoojee says he remains hopeful, if not for a swift resolution, then for public awareness. 'We need to start asking hard questions about how the system treats fathers. Father's Day should be a celebration, not a reminder of injustice.' This story is part of The Star's ongoing coverage of family law, children's rights, and legal ethics in South Africa.*
IOL News
15-06-2025
- IOL News
Heartbreak on Father's Day: Asif Casoojee denied access to his children during ongoing legal battle
As fathers around the world were honoured on Sunday, Johannesburg father and businessman Asif Casoojee marked yet another Father's Day alone, cut off from his children and emotionally drained by what he calls a 'systemic failure to protect fathers' rights. 'For the fourth consecutive year, Casoojee was not allowed to spend the day with his two children, nor attend the Father's Day event hosted at their prestigious private school on Friday — an institution he continues to fund despite being denied access. 'I wasn't even invited,' Casoojee told The Star 'The school told me the next of kin is the lawyer Kaamilah Paulse and that I wasn't welcome. It's not just heartbreaking. It's dehumanising.' Casoojee places the blame for his exclusion squarely on attorney Kaamilah Paulse, who represents his ex-spouse in an ongoing legal dispute that has spanned over four years. 'She's made every effort to alienate me from my kids. Calls are ignored, emails bounce back, and I've been locked out of school records and events. And still, I pay the fees,' he said. 'I'm their father, not a ghost.' His allegations are supported by a March ruling from the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC), which found prima facie evidence of misconduct by Paulse. The tribunal found that a protection order obtained against Casoojee was potentially granted without proper service, and flagged Paulse's alleged interference in his parental relationship — actions they described as amounting to 'parental alienation.' The tribunal also cited Paulse's alleged involvement in a private WhatsApp group where confidential financial and business information about Casoojee was discussed, despite no legal basis for such disclosures. In response to claims about child alienation, Paulse denied any wrongdoing and defended her role through her legal team. Speaking to The Star through her attorneys at Herold Gie, Paulse said: 'We point out that the statement contained is unsubstantiated, vague and lays no factual basis for the allegations made. We record that Ms Paulse denies the allegations, as stated by you'. Her firm added that the LPC Appeals Tribunal had ''not made any final findings'', but had merely referred the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee for further examination. Despite the legal assurances, Casoojee says the real damage is not to reputations, but to children.'My son asked me once, 'Why don't you come to my school anymore?' And I couldn't answer. Because the truth is — I'm being blocked.' He is now petitioning the High Court to have Paulse removed from the matter, citing conflict of interest and alleged unethical conduct. He also plans to ask the court to reinstate full parental access and to review the circumstances under which communication and visitation were restricted. Legal experts say his case is far from unique. 'There is an emerging pattern in the South African family law system where fathers feel increasingly sidelined,' said family law advocate Lesedi Mokoena. 'While the law recognises equal parental rights, the practical application can lean heavily in favour of one parent, often the mother.' Mokoena added that the legal profession must take its constitutional obligation to act in the best interests of children more seriously, noting, 'We cannot allow attorneys to become agents of division between parents and their children.' Casoojee echoed that sentiment.'This is about more than one day a year. It's about a lifetime of moments that are being stolen. I'm not perfect, but I'm a father — and I'm fighting to stay in my children's lives.'As the legal process unfolds, Casoojee says he remains hopeful, if not for a swift resolution, then for public awareness. 'We need to start asking hard questions about how the system treats fathers. Father's Day should be a celebration, not a reminder of injustice.' This story is part of The Star's ongoing coverage of family law, children's rights, and legal ethics in South Africa.*
Daily Maverick
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Place name changes likely to run foul of shaky political coalitions, especially at local level
In late March 2025, thanks in no small part to an invitation by colleagues from the Gauteng Geographical Names Committee, I gave input on the Gauteng leg of the countrywide South African Geographical Names Amendment Bill public consultation workshops. The Bill is a proposed amendment of the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture's (DSAC) South African Geographical Names Act 118 of 1998 – the principal place names statute in the country – as part of the national department's efforts to seamlessly standardise geographical names across South Africa. The well-attended Gauteng public engagement workshop formed part of nine consultative provincial visits by the department, following which the department will incorporate stakeholders' submissions and table the Bill to Parliament for further consideration. At the workshop, attendees were assigned to three breakout rooms – commissions – where we discussed the Bill's proposed clauses and later gave the department feedback at the plenary. The SA Geographical Names Amendment Bill proposes substantial and striking changes to the 1998 Geographical Names Act. This includes formalisation of South Africa's nine provincial geographical names committees advising and making place name recommendations to provincial members of the executive committee; adequate placename research and consultation; and formation of an independent three-to-five-expert placenames Appeals Tribunal that will review 'rejected' placename proposals. Intriguingly, the Appeals Tribunal, anticipated to be appointed by the national minister of Sport, Arts and Culture, will purportedly have more power than the national minister. Clauses around provincial geographical names committees authorise their setup, formalisation, morphology (10 to 15 experts), functioning, and tenure (five years of national council as opposed to the current three years spelt out by the principal act). 'Rigorous public participation' Provisos pertaining to research and adequate consultation mandate rigorous public participation and make requisite authorities' ample communication with local communities, from start to finish. Given that placename changes in South Africa have courted considerable controversy, with a lack of consultation having been cited as one potent driver of fiercely opposed toponym changes, clauses around adequate community participation and appeals are arguably a welcome proposal. Yet, the Bill is seemingly silent on matters of place-naming and name-changing at the local level. Indeed, the Bill does not make provision for local geographical names committees or bodies advising and giving geographical names recommendations to relevant members of the mayoral committee at the municipal sphere, referring to them only as 'subcommittees'. I raised this as an issue at the plenary and at the commission I was assigned to. Following this, some local geographical names committee members from Gauteng's local municipalities lamented the absence of clauses around local geographical names committees in the two-tier governance model characteristic of district and local municipalities, raising questions around how committees in such setups would be constituted. While some Gauteng Geographical Names Committee members argued that such omissions would be made up for by the fact that some local geographical names committee members also sat on the provincial geographical names committee in Gauteng and possibly others countrywide, thereby acting as transmission belts, the 'neglect' of local geographical names committees on the Amendment Bill remained palpable. Not only is this surprising, but it is also concerning, given naming-related controversies and ongoing on-the-ground governance issues at municipal level. In South Africa, (re)naming-related controversies, including petitioning, litigation and picketing, are arguably most pronounced at the local sphere of government. Consider, for instance, the then-ANC-controlled City of Tshwane's contested 2012 renaming of 25 streets in Pretoria Central and surrounds, which dragged on for years owing to, inter alia, court action by opposing AfriForum. Or the controversial wholesale renaming of Durban's 108 streets, which, following the Democratic Alliance's successful appeal at the Supreme Court of Appeal on grounds that the eThekwini Metropolitan Council had not followed proper procedures in its first phase of renaming, saw nine new street names being reverted. Unstable coalitions More concerningly, the Amendment Bill does not address the proverbial elephant in the room – pronounced unstable coalition arrangements across all governmental spheres, especially at the municipal level. Because South Africa's biggest political parties are increasingly unable to secure outright majority wins at local polls since 2016, hung councils have become a staple of the country's electoral politics, having grown from 27 in 2016 to 66 in 2021. This is most evident in many South African metropolitan municipalities where, thanks to multiple motions of no-confidence, shaky coalitions have proliferated. For instance, a 2024 study by The Outlier shows that since the 2016 local polls, no mayor in Johannesburg has been able to finish his/her term. Political opportunism This is evidence of political instability imposed by coalition arrangements in a country that is yet to promulgate laws for governing them. Suffice to say, the dearth of laws governing coalition arrangements in South Africa's largest urban centres and elsewhere has created opacity and made room for political opportunism. Some of this political opportunism is evident in (re)naming. Here, the case of eThekwini, where renaming controversies have mainly played out between the proposing ANC and the opposing IFP, is instructive. Take, for example, the controversial 2011 renaming of Mangosuthu Highway to Griffiths Mxenge Highway in honour of the ANC veteran, civil rights lawyer and anti-apartheid activist who was assassinated by an apartheid death squad on the road in question in 1981. In an open letter to the then KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) premier, the IFP had lamented that the name change was highly provocative, divisive and detrimental to reconciliation efforts in a province with a sordid history of party-political violence. The IFP had also posited that the name change would undermine community will, since residents in Umlazi, a township through which the highway passes, had in effect specifically requested the previous honour. Notwithstanding the IFP's objections and arguments, the ANC in eThekwini and KZN had okayed the renaming on the grounds that Buthelezi was a living person. The IFP found this reasoning irrational since several geographical features were named after statesman Nelson Mandela, then a living person, like Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi. In an interesting turn of events, in November 2021, a decade after the renaming and shortly after South Africa's disastrous sixth municipal elections, the ANC, determined to form coalitions with the IFP in KZN's 21 hung municipalities, was left with little choice but to bow to several IFP terms and conditions. One was that the ANC rename Griffiths Mxenge Highway back to Mangosuthu Highway. The ANC allegedly agreed to abide by this 'coalition precondition' and several others, which then led to the surprising coalition. While Griffiths Mxenge Highway has not been renamed back in honour of the IFP's now-departed leader, this saga demonstrates that geographical name-changing initiatives are liable to be held hostage by party politics and can be used for party-political bargaining. Where to now? Where does all this leave the geographical names committees at provincial and local levels? How do we ascertain that the political authorities to whom the South African Geographical Names Council and naming sub-committees report take the committees' voices/recommendations seriously? Really, how do we ensure that the committees are meaningfully engaged and 'shielded' from party-political manoeuvring? Equally, while the Amendment Bill makes provision for the establishment of an autonomous and powerful placenames Appeals Tribunal, how sure are we that the body will be truly impartial and independent, especially given its (future) functioning in a highly charged party-political setting? According to a Gauteng City-Region Observatory occasional paper on municipal demarcation in Sedibeng and Gauteng (particularly) and SA (generally), supposedly independent bodies in areas such as municipal (re)demarcation, another controversial issue in the country, have been affected by party politics. For instance, before the establishment of a single Municipal Demarcation Board, there existed provincial boards that made boundary demarcation-related decisions. The provincial demarcation boards, like the one for Gauteng, had made partial boundary re-demarcation decisions informed by political partisanship and aimed at gerrymandering. In fact, several gerrymandering instances in the 1990s were largely responsible for the removal of municipal and ward demarcation responsibilities from provincial control and the establishment of an independent national body that would make final delineation decisions. Disturbingly, the same Gauteng City-Region Observatory occasional paper finds that notwithstanding the national Municipal Demarcation Board's quasi-independence and enjoyment of constitutional protection, opposition parties and ordinary citizens alike have sometimes accused it of, inter alia, political slant in favour of the ANC, and making demarcation decisions without proper consultation. In the context of existing naming committees and the proposed Appeals Tribunal, since most name changes in South Africa have been proposed by political parties and authorities across all governmental spheres, how certain are we that the Appeals Tribunal and place-naming committees will be truly neutral, impartial and independent? With the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture having finalised the province-to-province consultative workshops around its proposed Amendment Bill, the jury is still out on whether the Bill will pass in Parliament. More importantly, there is no telling whether questions around local geographical names committees, messy coalition arrangements and incessant party-political changes at the municipal level will be considered and incorporated in the resultant amended Act.
The Star
17-05-2025
- The Star
LPC tribunal finds ‘prima facie evidence' against attorney Kaamilah Paulse
In a significant ruling, the Appeals Tribunal of the Legal Practice Council (LPC) has upheld a misconduct complaint brought by Johannesburg-based father, Asif Casoojee, against attorney Kaamilah Paulse of Herold Gie Attorneys. Casoojee has been locked in a four-year legal battle with his former spouse over access to their two children. Paulse represents his spouse. Casoojee reported Paulse to the LPC, accusing her of dishonesty, unethical and dishonest conduct, including orchestrating parental alienation, misusing the Protection from Harassment Act, and unlawfully interfering in his private and professional affairs. The case not only raises serious questions about the conduct of legal professionals in family law matters but also highlights the ongoing challenges faced by fathers in the South African legal system when fighting for contact with their children. In its findings delivered on 13 March 2025, the Appeals Tribunal found that Casoojee had presented prima facie evidence of misconduct on both counts raised in his appeal. Casoojee 's first charge related to a final protection order obtained by Paulse against him in her capacity. According to the Tribunal's report, the order was granted in his absence, allegedly due to defective service of the interim order, which had neither been delivered by SAPS as required nor included a return date. The second charge was more serious: a conflict of interest and interference in the parental relationship between Casoojee and his children. The tribunal said it found prima facie proof of Paulse's involvement in restricting Casoogee's access to his children's school, records, and communication, stating that her actions amounted to 'parental alienation'. The tribunal also flagged her alleged use of unlawfully obtained financial records and her participation in a private WhatsApp group discussing confidential details of Casoojee's company. The Appeals Tribunal, chaired by Advocate Sonja Lötter, was critical of Paulse's failure to address key concerns. ''This is not an answer to the evidence that the complainant has presented,' the tribunal said, adding that the children's best interests were not prioritised in any of the extensive litigation between the parties since 2021. The LPC reaffirmed the duty of attorneys to uphold the constitutional principle of the best interests of the child, as enshrined in the Children's Act 38 of 2005. 'Attorneys should not approach each case as if it were a war between litigants,' the tribunal stated, citing Judge Peter Mabuse, who warned that court rules must not be used 'as weapons in a battle to annihilate the opposing party'. The case underscores broader systemic issues. Although South African law grants both parents equal rights and responsibilities, many fathers report feeling marginalised in the family law system. 'There is often an unspoken bias that assumes the mother is always the better caregiver,' says family law expert Adv Lesedi Mokoena. 'But that is not the law, and it's not always what's in the best interests of the child.' Casoojee , who is currently applying to the High Court to compel Paulse's removal from the case due to a conflict of interest, asserts that his fight is about more than personal justice. 'This case is about setting a precedent. Our children deserve better than to be used as pawns in legal warfare.' On Thursday, Herold Gie Attorneys wrote to The Star , demanding that the paper not publish the story. In the letter, the law firm said: 'We strongly disagree with the decision of the LPC Appeals Tribunal to refer the matter back to the Disciplinary Committee. ''While the decision has been made, it should be noted that no final finding has been made regarding Ms Paulse. 'Ms Paulse will, when the matter is heard by the Disciplinary Committee, be challenging the complaint,' the letter reads. The matter is now expected to head back to the High Court, where the future of his relationship with his children may finally be resolved.
