- The Labour Court found that the Department of Correctional Services was justified in firing a senior correctional officer for depositing money into an inmate's account.
- The court said that making the deposits through official channels and getting receipts did not make the transactions acceptable.
- The court also found that the fact that other correctional officials may have done the same thing without being disciplined did not make the dismissal unfair.
The Labour Court in Cape Town confirmed that the Department of Correctional Services was justified in dismissing a senior correctional officer for depositing money into an inmate's prison account. The court held that these transactions amounted to prohibited financial dealings under the Correctional Services Act.
Acting Judge Pieter Venter dismissed an application by Wongama Mbombo, a former Senior Correctional Officer and Head of the Emergency Support Team at Pollsmoor Correctional Centre, who wanted to overturn an arbitration award that upheld his dismissal.
This review came after Commissioner Jacques Buitendag of the General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council found that Mbombo’s dismissal was fair.
Two deposits led to disciplinary action
Mbombo, who joined the department in 1997, was dismissed in November 2019 after he was found guilty of depositing R500 into inmate Janick Adonis’s account twice, once in October and again in November 2018.
He also faced a charge of unlawfully removing the inmate from Pollsmoor Correctional Centre. Although the arbitrator found him not guilty of that charge, he decided that the financial transactions alone were serious misconduct and were enough to justify dismissal.
Officer argued deposits were permitted
Mbombo challenged the arbitration award, saying the commissioner had not properly considered the evidence. He said that he deposited the money openly through the department’s cashier, received official receipts and believed the transactions were allowed.
He also argued that it was common practice for correctional officials to deposit money into inmates’ accounts and that he was unfairly singled out for discipline.
Mbombo said the commissioner did not properly consider evidence that other officials had done the same thing without being dismissed.
Department says law is clear
The Department of Correctional Services opposed the application, arguing that section 118(2)(b) of the Correctional Services Act clearly prohibits correctional officials from having financial dealings with inmates unless the law allows it.
The department said the real issue was not whether the deposits were made openly or processed through official procedures, but whether the transactions themselves were against the Act. The department also said that claims of inconsistent discipline could not excuse breaking the law.
Court rejects challenge
Judge Venter agreed with the department, finding that how the deposits were made did not change their legal nature. The judge said, “Making deposits openly, through official channels, or with official receipts does not change what the transactions are.”
He added that the law clearly prohibits correctional officials from having financial dealings with inmates, unless the Act allows it.
Judge Venter said this rule is important because it helps keep the correctional environment trustworthy, prevents inappropriate financial relationships between officials and inmates, and keeps the public’s trust in correctional facilities.
Senior position carried greater responsibility
The court also rejected Mbombo’s argument that his dismissal was unfair just because other officials had supposedly deposited money into inmates’ accounts without being disciplined.
Judge Venter said consistency is important in workplace discipline, but it is not the only thing that matters. He found that Mbombo’s senior position made his case different from those of other employees.
The judge said that people in leadership and positions of trust are expected to show the highest integrity and set an example for junior staff. He concluded that the arbitrator had properly considered the issue of consistency and was right to find that it did not outweigh how serious the misconduct was.
Review dismissed
The court found that the arbitrator’s decision was reasonable and dismissed the review application.
Judge Venter made no order on costs, finding that although Mbombo did not succeed, his case raised real legal questions about how the Correctional Services Act should be interpreted and how fairness works in workplace discipline.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
