Provisional withdrawal of fraud charges against Stanfield, others not sign of investigators' failure: WC police
Ntuthuzelo Nene 24 May 2025 | 9:06 Malusi Booi
Ralph Stanfield
South African Police Service (SAPS)
FILE: Malusi Booi (left) and his co-accused appeared in the Cape Town Magistrates Court on 31 January 2025. Picture: Ntuthuzelo Nene/EWN
CAPE TOWN - Western Cape police said the provisional withdrawal of commercial crime charges against 28's gang boss Ralph Stanfield, and others, is by no means an indication of failure on the part of investigators.
Stanfield, his wife, Nicole Johnson, City of Cape Town ousted Human Settlements MMC Malusi Booi, and more than 20 others were linked to a R1 billion tender fraud within the city's Human Settlements directorate.
However, the State had decided to withdraw the fraud charges against Stanfield, Johnson, Booi, and nine others, citing new evidence that has come to light.
The notorious couple and 12 others will remain behind bars to answer to a slew of gang-related charges, including murder.
The prosecution told the Cape Town Magistrates Court that the provisional withdrawal of the charges doesn't mean those implicated are off the hook.
Western Cape police spokesperson Novela Potelwa said it's common in complex cases like this to change the direction of an investigation due to the discovery of new information.
"It is envisaged that the withdrawn charges will be reinstated in due course. As the South African Police Service in the Western Cape, we are confident that the investigation into the 14 accused is still on course."
The case against Stanfield and 13 others has been postponed until July 14 for the State to provide further particulars to the defence before the case is transferred to the high court for a pretrial conference in November."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
9 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
State prosecutors and investigators' conduct under scrutiny after Cholota extradition overturned
BLOEMFONTEIN - The conduct of State prosecutors and investigators in the asbestos corruption trial is under scrutiny after Ace Magashule's former Personal Assistant, Moroadi Cholota, was let off on a technicality. On Tuesday, the Bloemfontein High Court ruled Cholota's extradition from the United States (US) in 2024 was unlawful and unconstitutional, after she accused the state of submitting falsified documents to United States (US) authorities. Cholota's special plea saw the court hear arguments in a trial within a trial about the lawfulness of the extradition and the court's jurisdiction to try her alongside her former boss and 16 others in the R255 million corruption case. Tuesday's judgment means Cholota will now be removed from the indictment. During the court ruling, Judge Phillip Loubser said, 'Consequently, I have to find that the prosecution has not found reasonable doubt or at all that there was a valid or lawful request from South Africa for the extradition of Ms Cholota from the United States. It follows that if there was no valid extradition request, then the extradition itself was without any basis and, therefore, unlawful.'
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Du Toit verdict highlights the persistent shadow of apartheid in SA's universities
Three years after the barbaric incident at Stellenbosch University where a white student, Theuns du Toit, urinated on a black student's study material, a court has acquitted him of criminal charges. A legally sound outcome according to the courts of law, but in the court of public opinion one that fails to address the collective pain Du Toit's actions evoked among many students who have been on the receiving end of humiliating acts because of the colour of their skin. In an opinion piece I wrote at the time of this incident, I referred to 'the outrage sparked by Du Toit's barbaric act', and the pain and trauma 'that his actions triggered among many black and brown students'. For many of these students, Du Toit's entering Babalo Ndwayana's room and urinating on his study material was not just a despicable act by an intoxicated student. The act carried the burden of history and became an echo of the violence of apartheid's dehumanising treatment. It is also a reminder of their own collective experiences of the insidious violence of racial humiliation and marginalisation that they have encountered in lecture halls and administrative offices, in residences, and in the wider Stellenbosch, as recounted in testimonies to the commission of inquiry that was chaired by Justice Sisi Khampepe. The State may not have been able to prove that Du Toit acted with criminal intent when he went into Ndwayana's room. But the impact of his vulgar act exposed the ever-present tension between progress — the moral and psychological possibility of change — and the historical burden and the sheer reality of the legacies of an apartheid past that intrudes into this progress, pushing back against change. What has become increasingly clear is that this case, in the public imagination, is no longer just about one student's intoxicated behaviour or another student's quest for recognition. Proxies Du Toit and Ndwayana have come to represent more than themselves. They are proxies for a deeper, unresolved confrontation between our country's apartheid past and its unfulfilled democratic promise. The national outrage and political polarisation that erupted after Du Toit's acquittal attests to this. For many historically marginalised students — at Stellenbosch University (SU) and elsewhere — Du Toit urinating on Ndwayana's study material became an embodied symbol of the enduring indignities that echo from apartheid and persist in their everyday encounters, the subtle, insidious acts of exclusion and humiliation that undermine their dignity and sense of worth. Du Toit, in turn, has become a rallying figure, his story a cause célèbre for those who feel that transformation has gone 'too far', or that white identity, especially Afrikaner identity, is under threat and must be defended at all costs. It is tempting, in moments like these, to reduce the complexity of this moment into a single narrative as a problem of 'racism at SU'. That was the framing offered by Makhi Feni, chairperson of the Select Committee on Education, in his remarks about the Du Toit verdict in Parliament last week, that 'racism at Stellenbosch University' should be 'pinned on old white lecturers'. He went further to dismiss the urination incident as nothing more than 'a clear case of drunkenness and misbehaving youth'. For a senior government official in higher education, these remarks are not only irresponsible; they reflect a denial of the depth of institutional transformation work still needed across our universities, including the role his own department must play in supporting these efforts. Dismissing this merely as the recklessness of an intoxicated student is a negation of the experiences of those for whom Du Toit's actions evoked long-silenced memories of insidious acts of violence against their dignity — and of the serious work that Stellenbosch University has already undertaken in trying to confront its past. Enduring challenges The findings of the Khampepe Commission testify to this. Playing the alcohol card will not resolve the enduring challenges we face in our efforts to address the wounds of history that erupt on our university campuses. There is a moment in the recording that Ndwayana made of the urination incident where Du Toit refers to him as 'boy'. According to his lawyer, Dirk van Niekerk, Du Toit cannot be held responsible for what he said or did. 'My client was intoxicated,' he reportedly explained in statements in the media, and furthermore, that in passing its verdict, the court 'understood the situation very well regarding his intoxication'. But even though Du Toit's calling Ndwayana 'boy' in the recording was rendered inconsequential in a court of law, used as a form of address, the word in this context is an echo of the historical violence of apartheid when black men were infantilised as a way of asserting white superiority. It should thus not be glossed over simply as a reflection of youthful intoxication. Of course, I am not suggesting that Du Toit's use of the term 'proves' racist intent — the court has already ruled on this issue. Rather, as a term that carries the burden of historical resonance, the word is part of apartheid's lexicon of social domination. Du Toit's use of the term points to the enduring legacy of what I refer to as the psychic violence of the apartheid mind. Many students saw themselves in Ndwayana. While the legal slate has been wiped clean for Du Toit, the collective trauma and outrage his actions triggered remain unresolved, silenced and pushed underground, but will continue to play out in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, as with all historical traumas. The public debate about this issue is now dominated by the narrative of Du Toit's legal victory. The story of how all of this is affecting Ndwayana, and how he, and others who identify with his experience, are holding up in the face of it all has been overshadowed by the looming spectre of Du Toit's civil claim. As Judith Butler has argued, whose voices are allowed to shape public discourse tells us something fundamental about whose lives are considered valuable. As we brace for the possibility of a civil suit from Du Toit's lawyers, Stellenbosch University would do well to resist the temptation to settle behind closed doors in the name of reputational damage control. Doing so would not only silence the public debate that must continue about the emergence of these problems in our institutions, but also risk reinforcing the very dynamics that perpetuate the fault lines that keep confronting us with the unfinished business of our past, which will remain unresolved unless we face this history and its 'afterlife' with moral courage. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for all its flaws, offers insights that show the possibility of creating a space for acknowledgement, truth telling, and moral accountability, the kind of reckoning that law alone cannot deliver. DM
IOL News
12 hours ago
- IOL News
Thales's bid for a permanent stay in Jacob Zuma's arms deal trial rejected
Former president Jacob Zuma's attempt to escape prosecution has failed. Image: Tumi Pakkies / Independent Newspapers Former president Jacob Zuma and his co-accused, Thales, are yet to decide whether they will file an appeal application against Tuesday's Pietermaritzburg High Court ruling to dismiss the arms deal case against them. Zuma, who now leads the Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP), had piggybacked on the giant French arms manufacturer's application for the permanent stay to escape being tried for fraud, corruption, racketeering, and money laundering charges. Zuma was not in court on Tuesday. The charges dated back to the 1998 arms deal, which the government had entered into with Thales, but whose trial has been delayed due to many factors, including attempts to get state prosecutor Advocate Billy Downer off the trial due to allegations of bias, which Judge Nkosinathi Chili had rejected in September last year. After Chili's ruling on Tuesday morning, the State and defence teams agreed to postpone the case to December 4. The postponement would give Thales time to decide whether to file an appeal against Chili's ruling. Zuma would also get time to go to a higher court to appeal against Chili's ruling that Downer should continue prosecuting the matter. Regarding the stay of prosecution application, Thales's legal team had, on April 24, advanced an argument that continuing with the trial would be constitutionally unfair since its client's former directors, Pierre Moynto and Alain Thetard, who were its prime witnesses, had died. Moynto had been the director of Thales and the executive officer of the African Defence Systems, another entity, 'which featured prominently in the State case against Thales'. He died on December 31, 2020. Thetard, who died in September 2022, also served as Thales's director. Both accused had contended that without Moynto and Thetard's testimony, their defence would be severely prejudiced. 'In support of its case, Thales alleged that the importance of Moynto and Thetard in the criminal trial against Thales was unquestionable, (as) they are the only individuals who would be able to testify on behalf of Thales and also to assist Thales in challenging any evidence led by the State against it,' said Chili. Zuma and Thales said that had the case against them not been delayed, Moynto and Thetard would have been available to testify. Zuma had said that if Thales succeeds, he would also apply to have his charges dropped because the alleged corruptor would no longer be on trial. However, that hope was dashed when Chili rejected the Thales argument that Moynto and Thetard's testimony was important. 'The question of whether they would prejudice, which might result in Thales not receiving a constitutionally fair trial, is a matter for the trial court. 'Whether the right to a fair trial is infringed, the matter would be best decided by the court,' said Chili. He agreed with Zuma's argument that his prosecution was conjoined with that of Thales and could not be separated, and that 'if Thales's case fails, Zuma's case must also fail'. He read an extract from the Criminal Procedure Act, which states that the decision to stop the prosecution rested with the State. 'There is nothing in the Act that empowers the court to direct the State to either withdraw a charge or stop the prosecution against an accused person. 'I am therefore satisfied that it would be incompetent of this court to grant the relief sought in prayer one of the main applications (brought by Thales),' said Chili. The judge said Thales was shifting the goalposts by claiming that Thetard and Moynto were its invaluable witnesses. He said that its May application contradicted another permanent stay of prosecution, which it made in November 2018, where it stated that Thetard was not prepared to come to South Africa to testify in the trial. He said Thales had at the time supported its argument by giving the court Thetard's affidavit, which was dated March 11, 2009, that he was not available to testify. He said Thales should have indicated in its latest application that Thetard had at some point changed his mind and was ready to testify. 'Without such evidence, one is tempted to conclude that Thales conveniently decided to move the goalpost.' He said the State had previously stated that Moynto was not important because he was not a central actor in the event, giving rise to the charges against Thales. 'It was the common course that he was not an officer or an employee of Thales in April 1998 and the third quarter of 2000, during which most of the events occurred. 'He only represented Thales before April 1998 and thereafter late in the year 2000 onwards,' said Chili. [email protected]
