The ongoing Jacobson-Yeni Inquiry has taken another twist with suggestions by the partner of one of the riders that the National Horseracing Authority has misrepresented the findings of the Acting Honourable Justice Randera in the Gauteng High Court on Friday afternoon.
Shamim Kibowa, in her capacity as Muzi’s partner, writes in the Sporting Post Mailbag in order to correct the NHA’s media release of 17 March 2023.
The Sporting Post reported the NHA’s media release – please click here.
Ms Kibowa writes:
I was present in court during the hearing and also have a copy of the order of Judge Randera.
The media release of the NHA is extremely misleading and is incorrect and appears to be a poor attempt by the NHA to legitimise the suspension imposed on Muzi.
At the hearing, the judge told the NHA that it is extremely unfair for the hearing not to be concluded speedily in order for Muzi to be able to then earn a living.
The judge never said that the suspension could continue.
The judge did tell the NHA that he was not prepared for the hearing to only start again on 3 April 2023 and he was going to make sure that the hearing of the inquiry was “fast-tracked”. Because of this, he decided at that time not to deal with the suspension.
The judge took the middle ground. This can be seen by him not dealing with the costs of the urgent application yesterday. Instead, he has given Muzi the chance to return immediately to court in the event that the inquiry is not finished on 29 April 2023.
The judge clearly thought that Muzi had a good case as the judge did not dismiss Muzi’s application with costs or refuse to hear it because it wasn’t urgent. What he did was take a ‘Solomonic decision’.
Please click here for a copy of the signed judge’s order, where you can see the judge has fast-tracked the inquiry as Muzi is being prejudiced.
It also makes NO mention of any suspension at all. I find it very unfair and questionable of the NHA to put out media statements which are false and misleading and also harm Muzi further.
It is also shocking that they are attempting to badly misquote a judge’s order. This could only have been done deliberately as no person could make that mistake accidently.
I trust that the article will be rectified to reflect this to avoid further damage to the good name of my partner.
