S’manga Khumalo – fined R75 000
Due to a number of inquiries relating to the previous Press Release dated 5 August 2015, the NHA has provided the following additional information.
During December 2013, an NHA Inquiry Board found that Jockey S Khumalo had contravened Rule 62.2.1 as a result of the manner in which he rode the horse SUPERTUBE at the Vaal Racecourse on 5 November 2013. A penalty of a suspension of 60 days was imposed. During this Inquiry, Mr Tarry testified.
Jockey Khumalo appealed the finding and penalty.
The appeal, which was heard on 14 March 2014, was not successful. The evidence given by Mr Tarry was pivotal to the decision of the Inquiry Board as well as the outcome of the Appeal.
After the Appeal was finalised, Mr Tarry deposed to an affidavit which sought to recant the testimony which he had given at the Inquiry.
Mr Khumalo’s legal team then launched a review application to the High Court, placing substantial reliance on the “new” Tarry evidence. The review proceedings were complicated by the fact that Mr Khumalo sought to introduce the new Tarry evidence as a factor to be considered by the court. This resulted in the delay in the finalisation of the proceedings.
The NHA took the view that, given the recanted testimony of Mr Tarry, the likelihood was that the court, faced with that reality, would probably refer the matter back to the NHA for an inquiry de novo. In the circumstances, and following engagements with Mr Khumalo’s legal representatives, it was agreed that the court proceedings be resolved on the basis that the matter would be referred to a new Inquiry Board. As part of the settlement, it was agreed that Mr Khumalo would plead guilty to a charge under Rule 62.2.2. The different charge was deemed appropriate in light of the changed evidence.
The new inquiry was duly convened. Mr Khumalo, legally represented at that inquiry, was charged with a contravention of Rule 62.2.2 and pleaded guilty.
The NHA representative at the inquiry motivated a penalty of R75 000 and the Inquiry Board decided to impose that fine.
The NHA was not, and will not be, a party to any arrangement in terms of which any privilege holder be given leeway or any advantage to enable that individual to pursue his aspirations to obtain the champion status. This matter was dealt with on its own peculiar facts and is not precedent setting.
Now that the Khumalo matter has been finalised, the NHA is in the process of establishing an Inquiry Board which will be tasked to investigate the circumstances which gave rise to Mr Tarry recanting the evidence which he gave at the Khumalo Inquiry, and whether there has been any contravention of the NHA’s Rules.
