MBABANE – The Law Society of Eswatini says it still stands by its position that the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into the Office of the Master of the High Court was allegedly unlawfully established.
Despite the Judiciary having previously stated that the commission was lawfully established and the subsequent release of its report, the Law Society has revived its call for the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the Master’s Office by the proper authority.
This follows revelations in the commission’s report that the Law Society did not attend its proceedings despite having been invited to make submissions.
Law Society Secretary General Thulani Sibandze yesterday confirmed that the society was invited to participate in the inquiry and responded to the invitation.
Sibandze said the society responded by way of a letter dated September 17, 2025, addressed to the secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry.
In the letter, the Law Society referred the commission to its previous position on the establishment of the inquiry.
The secretary general said, the society’s decision not to appear before the commission was not a failure to respond to its invitation, but followed its previously stated position on the legality of the inquiry.
In January 2024, the Law Society had written to Chief Justice Bheki Maphalala raising objections to the establishment of the commission.
The society’s position, as previously reported, was that the chief justice allegedly did not have the legal authority to establish a commission of inquiry into the Master’s Office.
It argued that the authority to establish such a commission vested in the minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.
The society had called on the chief justice to reconsider the decision to establish the commission, disband it and defer the inquiry to an authority legally empowered to establish it.
It nevertheless supported an investigation into the affairs of the Master’s Office, provided that the investigation was established by the proper authority and conducted independently and impartially.
The commission was established in January 2024 and was led by retired Supreme Court Judge Majahenkhaba Dlamini.
The inquiry followed complaints concerning the administration of deceased estates and the conduct of officials within the Master’s Office.
The commission subsequently conducted hearings in different parts of the country after determining that the volume of complaints required a regional approach.
When the commission completed its work, it delivered its report to the chief justice.
Commission Chairman Judge Dlamini said the Master’s Office had cooperated with the inquiry, although some matters could not be concluded because they were pending before the courts.
He also said some complaints concerned individual conduct, while others related to the technical aspects of how particular estates were distributed and whether the correct legal processes had been followed.
The commission’s report subsequently recorded that the Law Society had not attended its proceedings despite being invited.
The commission said the Law Society’s contribution could have assisted its inquiry, particularly because the investigation dealt with the administration of deceased estates and matters involving legal practitioners.
The report also considered the conduct of attorneys in a number of estate matters.
Among the issues considered were allegations concerning the use of estate money by attorneys acting as executors, the appointment of attorneys as executors in estates with limited funds, potential conflicts of interest and legal costs incurred by estates.
The commission also recommended measures aimed at improving the regulation of professionals involved in estate administration and strengthening protection for members of the public.
It recommended additional training for lawyers and other people involved in estate administration and called for improved regulation of the Lawyers Fidelity Fund.
The commission further dealt with the obligation of executors to account for estate property, stating that beneficiaries and the master were entitled to inspect supporting documentation relating to estate transactions.
However, despite the commission’s findings and recommendations, the Law Society’s position on the establishment of the inquiry remains unchanged.
Sibandze confirmed yesterday that the society’s September 17, 2025 letter had referred the commission to the position contained in its January 22, 2024 correspondence to the chief justice.
The Law Society had previously made it clear that it was not opposed to an investigation into the Master’s Office, but questioned the legal basis upon which the Judicial Commission of Inquiry had been constituted.
The commission has since completed its work and its report has been released, with its findings and recommendations addressing various aspects of estate administration and the conduct of professionals involved in the process.
The report also records the difficulties encountered by the commission in carrying out its mandate.
According to the report, the challenges included the scale of the investigation, missing records, unavailable information and evidence that could not be tested through cross-examination.
The commission commenced its duties on January 16, 2024, and was initially required to submit its report within 90 days. The period was subsequently extended on several occasions because of the scope and magnitude of the work involved. The report states that the commission was eventually given until June 2025 to complete its work. Despite the extensions, it said it was not possible to entertain and follow up all the complaints received.
The hearings were held continuously from January 22, 2024 to May 30, 2024, also from June 2024 until May 2025, and the commission continued sitting until November 14, 2025.
The commission also recorded difficulties in obtaining information and documents from the Master’s Office.
In one investigation involving estate late accounts, the commission said it requested files relating to accounts where there were allegations that executors had misused estate funds. The master promised to provide the files, but the report states that they were not provided. Instead, the commission received a list of estates where money had allegedly not been banked. The matters on the list were said to have been submitted to the police.
Missing files are said to have also affected individual investigations. In one estate, the Master’s Office reportedly told the commission that it was unable to locate the file. The commission directed the office to trace the matter through the motor registry and anti-theft unit and requested a report. The matter remained unresolved at the time of the report.
The commission says it encountered similar difficulties where court records could not be found.
In one estate dispute, a complainant sought to reverse a divorce which she said had excluded her from benefitting from her deceased husband’s pension and estate. The application failed because the court record from the Manzini Magistrates Court, where the divorce had been granted, could not be located.
The report also records instances where matters before the courts remained unresolved for extended periods, making it difficult for the commission to determine the final position of estates.
In another matter, a High Court file was reportedly missing, making it difficult for the attorneys involved to proceed. The commission noted that some applicants’ attorneys were allegedly inactive in prosecuting matters, while estates remained pending because related court proceedings had not been finalised.
The commission also dealt with difficulties arising from executors who were unavailable or uncooperative.
In one estate, the executor had left the country and was described in the report as not being helpful. When the commission called the attorneys involved, it learnt that one attorney had acted as a conveyancer but had been unable to complete the transfer. By the time the matter came before the commission, there was no executor to take the transfer process forward.
The nature of the evidence presented to the commission also created challenges. The report states that some oral and written evidence was not subjected to cross-examination. The commission said it was mindful that such evidential material had to be used with care.
It also received hearsay evidence. “The nature of the allegations under investigation made it unavoidable that some hearsay would form part of the factual material before it. Such evidence was treated cautiously, with consideration given to whether it was corroborated by other evidence,” states the report.
Where hearsay evidence implicated individuals, the persons concerned were given an opportunity to testify and contradict the evidence and to apply for permission to cross-examine the relevant witness.
The commission also recorded that the law society did not attend its proceedings despite being invited. It said the commission stood to gain considerably from the society’s contribution.
The report further shows that some investigations remained incomplete by the time the commission concluded its work. In one matter, the commission was still awaiting feedback from the master concerning the sale of estate property and the handling of the proceeds.
The commission also noted that, despite the extensions granted to enable it to complete its work, it had not been possible to investigate and follow up every complaint placed before it.
