Why alleged diamond dealer Louis Liebenberg is fighting a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation

For Louis Liebenberg, a single outburst in a magistrate’s court has followed him for months and now threatens to derail his criminal trial entirely.

The 61-year-old alleged diamond dealer has turned to the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria in a last-ditch effort to stop a court order that would see him sent for a 30-day psychiatric evaluation at Weskoppies Hospital. The order stems from a chaotic appearance in the Bronkhorstspruit Magistrate’s Court last year, where Liebenberg represented himself and clashed repeatedly with the presiding magistrate.

A courtroom meltdown with lasting consequences

Liebenberg’s troubles escalated during a bail application in August last year. Instead of focusing on securing his release, he launched into angry accusations, claiming he was being bullied by the magistrate, the prosecution and correctional services.

Concerned about whether he understood court proceedings, the magistrate ordered him to be examined by a doctor. That doctor later reported that Liebenberg showed no signs of psychiatric illness or mental defect.

Despite that, the magistrate went further, issuing an order that Liebenberg be referred to Weskoppies for observation by a panel of psychiatrists.

‘A sword hanging over his head’

In his urgent application, Liebenberg argues that the referral amounts to a “gross irregularity” in his criminal case. He says the order contradicts the medical report already before court and was based on the magistrate’s own assessment rather than expert evidence.

Although no bed has yet become available at Weskoppies, Liebenberg says the threat is constant. Once admitted, he argues, the damage would be irreversible.

“The referral hangs like a sword of Damocles over his head,” he stated in court papers.

Legal team questions the basis of the order

His lawyer, Charlene Eksteen, has backed the challenge, saying the outburst was the product of frustration not mental instability. She pointed out that Liebenberg was unrepresented at the time and lacked guidance on courtroom procedure.

Eksteen also noted that Liebenberg has appeared in court twice since the incident without further disruptions, undermining claims that he is unfit to stand trial.

Culture, conflict and courtroom decorum

Part of the confrontation stemmed from Liebenberg’s refusal to address the magistrate as “your worship” a long-standing term in South African courts inherited from British legal tradition. He told the court he found the phrase religiously and culturally uncomfortable, arguing that respect did not require “worship”.

The comments sparked debate online, with some social media users criticising his conduct, while others questioned whether cultural discomfort should ever be equated with mental instability.

What’s at stake now

Liebenberg is also asking the High Court to order the magistrate’s recusal, or at the very least suspend the psychiatric referral until the matter is finalised. He warns that being sent to Weskoppies would delay the case, affecting not only him but also his co-accused.

With a preliminary hearing scheduled for April and the main trial set down for October, the High Court’s decision could determine whether the case moves forward or remains stuck in legal limbo.

At its core, the dispute raises uncomfortable questions about courtroom control, mental health assessments, and where the line is drawn between disruptive behaviour and genuine incapacity in South Africa’s criminal justice system.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com