Candidate attorneys caught cheating in admission applications

Two candidate attorneys have been caught cheating in their admission applications to become practising attorneys. Illustration: Bronwyn Webb

• Reza Bhayat’s admission as a practising attorney has been rescinded after the Legal Practice Council found he forged several documents including examination results.
• Bongekile Adonica Gasa was declared unfit to be admitted as an attorney for her obfuscations about her involvement as a paid sole director of a cleaning company.
• Judge Wyno Pietersen said Gasa had effectively lied under oath and Judge Millar referred Bhayat’s matter to the National Prosecuting Authority to consider criminal charges.

Two candidate attorneys have been caught cheating and lying in their applications to the High Court to be admitted as practising attorneys.

In one matter, the Legal Practice Council (LPC) has successfully rescinded an order formally admitting Reza Bhayat in January 2025, after finding that he had used fraudulent documentation in his application.

Pretoria High Court Judge Anthony Millar and Judge Elmarie van der Schyff directed that the full case file and the ruling be sent to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to consider criminal charges.

The court further directed that UNISA, where Bayet claims he completed his law degree, be alerted after questions about the authenticity of his degree were raised.

At the Pietermaritzburg High Court, acting Judge Wyno Pietersen, with Judge Jacqui Henriques concurring, refused an application for admission by Bongekile Adonica Gasa after she failed to disclose that while doing articles with Norton Rose Fulbright, she was paid as the sole director of a cleaning company.

The judges further found that she had lied about this, claiming she had little to do with the company and had not earned any money from it. Bank records showed otherwise.

In the Bhayat matter, Judge Millar said the LPC had made an “overwhelming case” that he had obtained his admission by forging several documents, including examination results, correspondence from the LPC, and affidavits of third parties, presenting them to the LPC and the court as authentic.

“He misrepresented to both his counsel, who appeared for him [at his admission hearing], and to the judges whom he appeared before, that he had complied with the provisions of the Act and was entitled to admission.

“He went through the charade of being admitted and of taking the oath of office in circumstances where he knew that he was neither entitled to do so, nor should have done so.”

The LPC investigated Bhayat after he requested some documents in August 2025. The LPC checked its records and found that he had not submitted his original admission application, nor passed four prescribed examinations, and the letter of “no objection” he had presented to the court had never been issued by the LPC. Documents he had submitted contained fraudulent signatures.

Challenged by the LPC, Bhayat claimed he had been suffering from depression and anxiety, that he no longer wanted to be an attorney and was “withdrawing his request for enrolment”.

Judge Millar said it was concerning that Bhayat did not appear to properly appreciate his predicament, believing that by consenting to the rescission, there would be no “factual determination”.

“He is wrong in this regard, and the unanswered case of fraud and forgery cannot be left simply at that,” the judge said, and referred the matter to the NPA.

On the issue of his law degree, Millar said the LPC had attempted to get clarity from UNISA, but it had refused to co-operate.

“It is simply not acceptable for an institution like UNISA to obstruct the verification of documents … in doing so it impeded the LPC in the discharge of its statutory function.”

Millar directed the LPC to deliver a copy of his judgment to the Chancellor for “his attention”.

In the Gasa matter, Judge Pietersen said, “It is undisputed that she served her articles diligently, even when she had to work remotely during the Covid-19 pandemic. She placed before the court glowing reports from directors.”

In her admission application, she admitted to having been paid which is in breach of the rules. She asked the court, however, to direct that her articles not be voided because of this. She said the company was “very small” and any income was used to pay wages and overheads, and she had not taken a salary.

The law firm had initially supported her application but subsequently withdrew it after she disclosed that bank statements reflected references to “directors wages”.

The LPC investigated further and found that she was more involved in the company than she disclosed in her founding affidavit.

In a further affidavit, Gasa said the money which came into her account was just to cover overhead expenses and purchase items for the company because the company’s bank card had been lost.

But the company bank statements, said Judge Pietersen, indicated frequent payments, sometimes more than once a day, marked “directors wages”. The amounts were between R1,000 and R5,000.

The judge said she was also untruthful about other material facts.

“This amounts to lying under oath.”

He said she had also breached her fiduciary duties as a director of the company, which made her unfit and not proper to be admitted as an attorney. “We do not reach this conclusion lightly and are mindful of the effect of it,” he said.

Support independent journalism
Donate using Payfast