Pretoria artist wants R21m from state for unfair discrimination

Performing artist Tloledi Makudubela has taken a number of government departments to the Equality Court for unfair discrimination and harassment.

These include departments of sport, arts and culture, justice and constitutional development, police, and the presidency.

The 53-year-old Makudubela, who lives in Soshanguve, north of Pretoria, is seeking damages of over R21-million for a slew of alleged unfair discrimination cases, including being overlooked for the Covid-19 social relief grant.

In papers filed at the Equality Court, Makudubela is also citing the SABC for allegedly not playing her music and for altering the music she submitted for airplay.

She is also seeking relief for harassment, which she alleged occurred during several alleged assaults by the police at the Union Buildings and at police stations following her arrests while protesting and allegedly under custody in police cells.

Social relief grant

The Equality Court is currently hearing the case at the Pretoria magistrate’s court, with the Department of Sport, Arts, and Culture listed as the first respondent among 12 respondents that also include Legal Aid South Africa and the public protector, a Chapter 9 institution.

On Tuesday, before Makudubela took the stand to resume her testimony, which started on August 28, magistrate E Sekele heard an application by state attorney BJ Mulaudzi.

Mulaudzi was seeking to dismiss applications against the Department of Justice (second respondent), the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities (third respondent) and the fourth respondent, the president.

He said that in terms of their mandate, they did not deal with the Covid-19 social relief grant, adding that whatever decision was taken was administrative in nature.

“There are also processes to deal with such issues … exhaust internal remedies. No internal remedies were exhausted. Nowhere in the papers did she request reasons why she was not considered [for the social relief grant],” he said.


Timing of application questioned

Makudubela, who is representing herself — and hence Legal Aid South Africa is the sixth respondent, the Law Society of South Africa the seventh, and the University of Pretoria Law Clinic the eighth — argued that the government departments had plenty of time to make such an application.

She questioned why they waited for September 12 to make such an application when they had almost “two years” to respond to her case.

“The respondents didn’t respond or submit responding papers when first requested to do so,” she said.

Sekele said while the court cannot ignore any document presented to it, whether filed on time or not, it would be irregular for him to entertain the points raised by the state in its bid to dismiss applications against the three respondents.

Sekele dismissed the application by the state to remove the second, third and fourth respondents.

Subpoena of witnesses

The court also had to deal with a subpoena of witnesses for Makudubela, who had provided a list of witnesses with either first names or surnames only and no addresses.

“I have no money to buy food. I don’t have money to buy airtime,” Makudubela told the court, asking why the clerks of the court were not assisting her to trace her witnesses.

Makudubela also submitted names of employees of the departments, which are cited as respondents to be her witnesses.

Sekele made Makudubela aware of the possible conflict of interest that may arise in having officials testify against their own employer.

An agreement was reached with Mulaudzi that government officials who are cited as witnesses by Makudubela and who will not be called by the state to give testimony will be made available to testify for her.

In her testimony, Makudubela said she brought the matter to the Equality Court because the first respondent — the Department of Sport, Arts, and Culture — did not want to listen to anyone regarding her complaints about being allegedly overlooked for the social relief grant.

The matter was postponed to the end of October because that was the only time the state attorney was available.

Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest News