Help: The National Organization of the Blind is hobbled by suspicious characters

Posted on:
12 May 2016
Posted by:
Robert Moshoane


We seek advice or help on this legal matter. The National Organization of the Blind (NOBSA) had problems after the Board Elect collapsed; which was elected 2013/04/13. Only three members remained and they were dysfunctional and they disappeared. I was then asked by the Department of Social Development to help stabilize the organization; hence the Interim Board was nominated 0n 2014/06/10 and started to operate 2014/07/25.

Five months down the line, we were served with Court Orders which stopped us from rendering the services and prohibiting us from delivering the mandate from Social Development. Funding was granted to us on strict conditions and they were to be achieved within 6 months:

1. We were to stabilize the organization.

2. Account on the funds.

3. Render service delivery.

4. Organize an AGM which will lead to the election.

I tried the Justice Centre and the Probono at the Constitutional Hill on a probono bases. I was told that their budget does not allow them to pursue a High Court matter; especially a rescission.

I had suspicions about the Court Orders served on NOBSA:

1. The complainants were no longer with the organization after the collapse of theĀ Board they served.

2. Their Attorney is a suspect because he changes his status from Attorney to a sheriff with different names. He is Thabo the Attorney and Dlamini the sheriff and he is the spokesperson for the Board Elect.

3. This matter has 2 different case numbers, 14/05131 and 14/ 4318 with different Judges presiding over.

What surprises me is that this organization is mainly funded by Social Development. Why are these individuals or persons elected to serve on the board as volunteers takingĀ other volunteers to High Court on such an expensive route. When there are so many remedial options that can be used.

We request your help.

1. The validity of this matter in relation to the Court case

2. With unravelling the two cases on one matter

3. With this Attorney who is emotionally involved in this matter.

4. There are misrepresentations of information under oath in their Notice of Motion.

5. A misconduct of the sheriffs

6. With the 3 members left of the Board Elect and they have no mandate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *