One of the oldest and most influential Islamic organisations, the Muslim Judicial Council (MJC), was threatened with contempt of court by its former president, Sheikh Irafaan Abrahams, after he claimed the MJC breached a September court order.
However, the Western Cape High Court dismissed Abrahams’ contempt bid because the “evidence does not support” his version.
Abrahams started his second term as president in May 2021, which, according to him, was meant to last for five years.
However, other senior members within the MJC raised concerns they said involved Abrahams, which the MJC has not spoken publicly about as internal processes are ongoing.
Abrahams denies any wrongdoing as president and noted he was never subject to a disciplinary enquiry.
However, bodies within the MJC decided to have an early meeting to elect a new executive committee ousting Abrahams from his position before his term was up.
Abrahams sought to interdict the MJC in the High Court from holding any such meeting for a new executive committee, which would have effectively ended his term early.
However, the MJC and Abrahams reached a settlement and the matter was never argued. The settlement was made an order of court in September 2023. Part of the order was Abrahams would be on paid suspension pending the outcome of the election of the new president. Further, the MJC had to initiate and conclude a disciplinary enquiry against him by November 2023.
In his contempt application, Abrahams says the MJC breached this order by not holding the disciplinary enquiry and proceeding with the elections for a new MJC president, Riad Fataar.
However, the MJC says that shortly after the court order, both the MJC and Abrahams reached a further oral agreement that settled any and all disputes such that there was no need to comply with the September order.
The oral agreement, according to the MJC, indicated payment of R350,000 to Abrahams, his resignation and a withdrawal of the court case that resulted in the court order.
Therefore, said the MJC, it can’t be in contempt because it acted off the genuine belief all matters had been settled and there was no need to adhere to the September order.
Acting Western Cape High Court judge Con Joubert, in his judgment last week, found that Abrahams’ evidence “does not support [him] strongly enough” to reach a finding of contempt.
Joubert noted contempt of court applications have a high threshold because contempt is a criminal offence and therefore there is a “criminal standard of proof” required.
If found in contempt, people can face imprisonment — as famously with former president Jacob Zuma after disobeying the Constitutional Court in 2021 — or a fine.
According to Abrahams, following the September order there were meetings and discussions concerning the disputes between the MJC and himself.
But he denied that he accepted the terms in the way the MJC alleged.
Joubert noted the MJC produced evidence, confirmed by its lawyers, such as phone calls and other correspondence which indicated their version was more probable.
Joubert said the MJC’s had shown there existed a reasonable doubt to overcome a criminal finding against the organisation.
The case was dismissed with costs and the MJC’s current executive can remain.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.