‘You are misleading the court': Magistrate Ramlal slams State as blue lights fraud trial collapses again
Image: Supplied
The long-running tax fraud trial linked to the SAPS 'blue lights' scandal fell into fresh disarray on Thursday at Palm Ridge Magistrate's Court, with Magistrate Ashika Ramlal sharply criticising the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and accusing the State of misleading the court.
At the heart of the confusion is accused number three, whose role in the case has changed without explanation. He was initially said to have confessed, but no written confession was ever filed. He was then removed from the charge sheet and quietly reclassified as a potential State witness, raising serious concerns about coercion and procedural misconduct.
Things worsened on Thursday when accused number nine, Thomas Marima, arrived in court late and without proper legal representation. Marima only met his lawyer for the first time during the court break. Magistrate Ramlal was visibly frustrated, accusing the State of using Marima's lack of counsel as a tactic to delay the trial again.
'You are misleading the court if you say you are ready for trial,' Ramlal told lead prosecutor Richard Chabalala. 'This is why South Africans are losing trust in the NPA.'
The magistrate concluded that the State may not be ready to proceed and issued a firm directive: by 1 July 2025, the State must ensure all accused persons are provided with a complete and accurate charge sheet and that they fully understand the charges against them.
'You were hoping to use number nine's lack of representation as a way to secure another postponement,' she added.
Defence lawyer Piet du Plessis, representing former acting police commissioner Kgomotso Phahlane, was equally critical earlier in the week.
'It's 2025, and the State still doesn't have a valid charge sheet for a case that began in 2018,' he said. 'After 40 minutes, the prosecutor couldn't produce a single legally sound version.'
The original charge sheet — dating back to 2021 — was signed by Herman Cronje, who left the NPA the same year. That version listed James Ramanjolam as accused number three. In the latest version, Ramanjolam is no longer included — yet his signature remains on some documentation.
Du Plessis and other attorneys argue that altering a charge sheet prepared by a former official without submitting it to IDAC (Investigating Directorate Against Corruption) head Andrea Johnson for re-approval is procedurally improper and potentially fraudulent.
These discrepancies have triggered calls for a formal investigation into the NPA's handling of the matter. When questioned in court, Prosecutor Chabalala admitted the errors were his responsibility, blaming 'oversights' in formatting and printing. Legal experts say such explanations fall short for a corruption case of this magnitude.
Some accused individuals claim they were harassed or pressured to testify against others, raising additional concerns over fairness. Several have seen charges dropped and later reinstated, including Major General Ravi Pillay, former SAPS Head of Procurement. Businessman Vimpie Manthata and his company — listed as accused one and eight — have experienced the same back-and-forth.
At the centre of the case is an alleged R19 million VAT fraud connected to Instrumentation for Traffic Law Enforcement, a company owned by Manthata. Bookkeeper Judy Rose is accused of facilitating the fraudulent claims, which form part of a broader R191 million SAPS procurement scandal involving emergency 'blue lights' equipment.
The trial was expected to proceed this week, with SARS officials scheduled to testify. But the continued confusion over documents and legal representation brought proceedings to a halt once again.'This is just another example of a high-profile corruption case falling apart due to poor planning, weak prosecution, and basic legal missteps,' one legal observer commented.
Magistrate Ramlal has now set 1 July as a non-negotiable deadline. 'All the accused must receive a complete charge sheet, and all must understand what they are being charged with—no more excuses,' she said.
The matter is due back in court on 15 July 2025. But unless the State resolves its ongoing procedural failures, this already seven-year-old trial risks collapsing entirely.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
Daily Maverick
4 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Experts advocate for robust data sharing in SA to crack down on economic crime
Financial crime on the continent isn't just growing — it is mutating. With billions of rands lost annually and corrupt structures entrenched, it's clear that breaking down silos and boosting private-public information sharing is no longer optional; it's now essential. This was the scary picture that emerged at a recent Institute of Commercial Forensic Practitioners conference. Experts from both the private and public sectors hammered home the message that the future of economic crime prevention in Africa hinges on smashing information silos and building airtight data-sharing frameworks. 'Economic crime remains a significant issue in South Africa, with South Africans losing millions due to economic crime,' said Elzé Matthee, researcher and academic trainee at North-West University. According to the SA Banking Risk Information Centre's 2023 annual crime statistics, an actual loss of R3.35-billion was recorded due to economic crime — on the back of 1.5-million separate criminal incidents. Meanwhile, the 2024 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index indicates that South Africa's score has further dropped by three points since 2019 to a score of 41 out of 100. South Africa shares the same ranking as Burkina Faso, Kosovo and Vietnam, followed by Colombia at 87th. The problem is complex, expensive to investigate, and worsened by outdated frameworks that keep private-sector intelligence locked away from those who need it most — the authorities. Matthee said that one measure to enhance the prevention and detection of economic crime was through information-sharing frameworks in the form of private and public sectors. What this means going forward Effective information sharing between the private and public sectors is a critical, yet underutilised, weapon in combating economic crime. Key benefits include: The private sector holds an extensive pool of information that is often inaccessible to public authorities. This data supports identifying beneficial owners of corporate structures, verifying customers, monitoring transactions and conducting intelligence-driven enquiries. Enhanced information sharing strengthens anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism efforts through targeted and timely actions. It enables faster, more pertinent reporting during ongoing investigations and live incidents, improving responsiveness. When prioritised within specific private-public information sharing frameworks, it significantly increases the detection and disruption of suspicious activities. From theory to action Matthee said that between 4 October and 15 October 2024, South Africa ran 14 coordinated operations targeting corruption, illegal wildlife trafficking and illicit financial flows. More than R189-million was recovered, and the Financial Recovery Committee issued Section 34 directives against 30 individuals linked to money laundering in state-owned enterprises. These wins, though impressive, represent just the tip of the iceberg — but are proof that strategic data pooling between sectors works. Significant step forward The broader institutional landscape has also taken notice. The National Treasury also recently announced that the Financial Action Task Force confirmed that 'South Africa has substantially completed all 22 action items' that were contained in the action plan adopted when South Africa was greylisted in February 2023. DM
