Furthermore, Gildenhuys, J rejected a veritable litany of procedural objections against the disciplinary process (at para 28). In particular, he remarked:
Subscribe to view the full document.
JUDGMENT"I get the impression that most, if not all, theprocedural objections are afterthoughts. Theapplicant should have raised them before or at thedisciplinary hearing. He chose not to attend thehearing. In my view, none of the proceduralshortcomings, indeed there are shortcomings,resulted in an unfair hearing or an unfair result". On 31 July 2007, that is before the judgment was handed down, applicant's attorney caused an email to be sent to both first respondent and second respondent. In this email applicant's attorney gave notice of an internal appeal which was to be lodged against the decision of the NDC and accordingly requested second respondent not to replace the applicant pending the outcome of both the judgment and the internal appeal (if that was necessary). This request was refused in a letter on 2 August 2007 which was generated from second respondent's attorney. On 2 August 2007, second respondent's Chief Whip, Mr Lekotse, wrote to first respondent as follows:"Our previous correspondence regarding the dismissal of Dr S E M Pheko as a PAC member has a reference. We now wish to advise your good offices that Mrs Thembeka Jali will replace Dr Pheko [the fax is indistinct] as an MP with immediate effect. We herein also attach a revisedcandidates' list for your easy reference".To this, first respondent replied:"I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 2 August 2007 in which you informed me of the PAC's intention to replace Dr S E M Pheko as its member of the National Assembly. I wish to inform you that I have not been formally informed of Dr Pheko's dismissal from the PAC. The PAC's request to replace Dr Pheko can therefore not be given effect to until such time that I have been informed of his dismissal from the PAC. The review of your party list has been processed". It appears that some time during these proceedings, applicant appointed another attorney who then submitted grounds of appeal to second respondent. Requests were also made to second