NPA escalates fight to get Magashule's ex-PA Cholota back in the dock to SCA
This is after the Bloemfontein High Court dismissed the State's application for leave to appeal a judgment that saw Cholota walk free on a technicality in June.
READ: Lawyer says it's up to Moroadi Cholota on whether she'll sue State for her unlawful extradition from US
Cholota was among a dozen high-profile figures facing corruption and fraud charges in a botched R255 million contract.
Last month, the NPA suffered a massive blow in the asbestos trial-within-a-trial, after the court ruled that Cholota's extradition from the US was unlawful and unconstitutional.
She claimed that State prosecutors and Hawks investigators in the matter based the extradition application on falsehoods, intentionally misleading US authorities in the effort to haul her back to South Africa.
The court also ruled that only the justice minister could spearhead an extradition process and not the NPA, as was the case in Cholota's matter.
As a key figure in the State's case against Magashule, the NPA challenged the court's decision, but the court dismissed the NPA's application for leave to appeal.
The NPA said it believes that Judge Phillip Loubster erred in his dismissal of the application, adding that there were compelling reasons for the SCA to hear its appeal.
The main trial against Magashule, businessman Edwin Sodi and a dozen others is set to continue in January next year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Key witness reveals overtime denial in Zandile Gumede's tender fraud case
Former mayor of eThekwini, Zandile Gumede. Image: Nomonde Zondi Allan Robert Abbu, one of the accused in the R320 million Durban Solid Waste (DSW) fraud case involving former eThekwini mayor Zandile Gumede, refused to approve overtime for workers to finish the open tender evaluation process. Instead, Abbu had approached service providers to send their bid quotations for the 2017 tender waste contracts. This is according to a State witness when she testified in the Durban High Court on Thursday. However, the witness, who worked at the solid waste unit as one of the managers, failed to tell the court when she had requested overtime. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Abbu, who said he had a plan when he refused to grant overtime, was the deputy head of the DSW unit. According to the State witness, who cannot be named, deputy heads were the ones authorised to approve overtime within eThekwini Municipality. Abbu, Gumede, and 20 others are charged with fraud, racketeering, corruption, money laundering, contravention of the Municipal Finance Management Act and the Municipal Systems Act, relating to this tender. The media is prohibited from naming State witnesses. According to what the court has learnt thus far, the DSW unit stated that it would not be able to complete the evaluation of open contract bids in time. In order to collect rubbish in eThekwini, it instead turned to experienced service providers. In her evidence-in-chief, the witness said an open tender for waste collection was advertised in November 2017, and the closing date was December 13, 2017. She stated that a huge number of bids were received, and they immediately started evaluating the bids. 'I requested help from the SCM (Supply Chain Management) to try and speed up the evaluation process. I got the assistance of six staff members,' she said. The witness further mentioned that more employees from solid waste and cleaning were brought in to help. She said that Abbu rejected her verbal request for overtime so they could work on the weekend of December 16. She added that from December 14 to 19, she was off duty. However, during cross-examination by Abbu's counsel, advocate Jay Naidoo SC, he asked her when she had asked for overtime. At first, she said she could not remember the exact date, adding that there was a farewell party on December 15, and she had attended it with Abbu. She insisted that she requested overtime at this party. However, she said the affidavit that she made during the investigations is the one that has the correct date of when she had asked for overtime. Naidoo read the affidavit, and it said she spoke to Abbu on December 14. However, she insisted that they spoke at the party, and as she was asked more questions, she would also insist she spoke to Abbu on December 14. 'It is my instruction that he (Abbu) never spoke to you at the party. He says you never spoke to him about the overtime,' Naidoo said. The witness said she would not dispute Abbu's claim. 'The request was made in a social gathering, and I did not write an email,' she replied. The trial continues.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
You, SA and USA relations
Zachariah Johannes Olivier, Rudolph de Wet and William Musora face charges of murder after the bodies of two women were left in a pigsty on a Limpopo farm. The US raised the case as an instance of extrajudicial killing. Image: NPA WE HAVE all been fixated by the recent exchange between Pretoria and Washington following the US State Department's report on human rights in South Africa and our government's rejection of the report as "inaccurate and deeply flawed". This is more than just a diplomatic spat; it has significant economic implications. It may be served as a form of retribution for the SA governments, Israel and the ICJ stance. The US claims include a "significantly worsened" human rights situation, citing issues from land expropriation without compensation targeting Afrikaners, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings, and repression of racial minorities. In a decidedly blunt rejoinder the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) dismissed the report as "inaccurate and deeply flawed", accusing it of relying on "context-free information and unreliable accounts" and distortions - especially concerning incidents still before independent judicial processes. Dirco points to the transparent and contested nature of the law, framed within constitutional mechanisms and robust judicial oversight. Indeed, expropriation, including without compensation, is not unprecedented in constitutional democracies when tied to public interest objectives and subject to due process. The US also raised the Limpopo 'pig farm' case as an instance of extrajudicial killing, where two female farmworkers were allegedly murdered and fed to pigs, Dirco labels this as misrepresentation. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The matter is 'actively adjudicated' by independent courts, and governmental structures diligently pursue proper investigation. These observations highlight tension between extrinsic perceptions and internal legal due process. In assessing human rights conditions, global observers must afford deference to domestic institutions when they demonstrably function coherently and transparently. From an economic standpoint, land reform remains both a moral and fiscal imperative in SA, one that seeks to rectify historical injustices while fostering agrarian productivity and broad-based participation. Blanket condemnation of expropriation laws, without acknowledging their redistributive motivations, risks entrenching inequality and inhibiting economic transformation. SA's pursuit of redress must not be misconstrued as an affront to minority rights when carried out via legal and accountable channels. The SA government's rebuttal, as articulated by the Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation, challenges the very credibility of the US report. It highlights a reliance on "a-contextual information" and discredited accounts, and points to the irony of a nation that has exited the UN Human Rights Council critiquing another's record. This counter-narrative is crucial for SA as it seeks to maintain its economic relationships. By framing the report as politically motivated and factually baseless, the SA government is attempting to mitigate its international reputation. We ultimately want to preserve the trade agreement and attract capital. From an economic perspective, property rights are the cornerstone of a stable investment climate. The perception, real or manufactured, that property rights are at risk can deter foreign direct investment and create domestic capital flight. It signals a heightened level of political and regulatory risk, which local and international investors are highly sensitive to. The economic fallout of this diplomatic friction could first impact the risk assessments of international rating agencies, potentially leading to a further downgrade of SA's sovereign debt, resulting in increased borrowing costs for both the government and private sector, stifling growth. Secondly, the "extrajudicial killings" and "repression" narrative can tarnish the brand SA, impacting tourism and the willingness of multinational corporations to establish a presence or remain in SA. The SA criticism of the US, comparing the Biden administration's more inclusive human rights approach, was supplanted by the current US right-leaning approach. The irony of receiving judgment from a country that has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council. SA government could argue that if human rights advocacy is to retain credibility, it must transcend partisan biases and engage fairly and consistently with the US own processes. Recommendations for moving forward In light of this controversy, the following is proposed: - Multilateral verification: SA should invite independent international bodies - preferably UN-mandated institutions - to objectively assess the contested claims, including land policy execution and farm-attack data. - Strengthen communication: Dirco and SA's legal and statistical bodies should proactively disseminate accurate, evidence-based reports to domestic and international audiences, promoting transparency. - Diplomatic engagement: SA should use diplomatic channels to engage with US counterparts, emphasising shared interests and discouraging unilateral politicisation of human rights narratives. - Institutional dialogue: Regional bodies (AU, SADC) and legal peer platforms should reaffirm adherence to due process and mutual respect for sovereign reforms enacted under constitutional frameworks. Ultimately, this is a battle of perception. The US report and SA's response are not just about human rights but about international influence and the economic levers that come with it. For SA, the challenge is to demonstrate, through action and not just words, that its constitutional democracy is robust and that its commitment to the rule of law and property rights remains unwavering. The economic future of the nation may depend on it. Advocate Lavan Gopaul Image: File
The Star
13 hours ago
- The Star
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.
