Premier to take action against Education MEC
He's found a department in crisis after a whistleblower revealed a dodgy laptop tender.
The department paid over R90,000 each for 22 devices.
The probe also found the supplier knowingly overcharged the department.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Key witness in Joshlin Smith trial seeks indemnity: What is a Section 204 witness?
Laurentia Lombaard was a Section 204 witness in the Joshlin Smith Trial. Image: Armand Hough/Independent Newspapers Laurentia Lombaard, the key witness in the Joshlin Smith trial, has this week asked the court to grant her indemnity following her explosive testimonies that led to the guilty conviction of three people. The highly publicised trial made international headlines. The six-year-old green-eyed girl disappeared from Saldanha Bay on February 19, 2024. The search for her continues to date. Joshlin's mother, Kelly Smith, received a life sentence for her role in the child's disappearance. Kelly, her boyfriend Jacquen 'Boeta' Appollis, and Steveno van Rhyn each received life sentences for trafficking in persons and 10 years for kidnapping. It was Lombaard's startling testimony that Kelly had received R20,000 to sell Joshlin to a sangoma that sent shockwaves through the community. But despite her testimony, Lombaard, who became a Section 204 witness for the State, was not automatically released from facing criminal charges. Lombaard was initially arrested and charged alongside the trio. In October 2024, Lombaard decided to turn State witness. But what is a Section 204 witness? Speaking to IOL, Associate Lecturer in the Department of Criminal Justice and Procedure at the Law Faculty of the University of the Western Cape (UWC), Tlholo Lehlekiso, answers the questions. Jacquen Appollis, Steveno van Rhyn and Kelly Smith were sentenced in May. Image: Robin-Lee Francke/IOL 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 What is a Section 204 witness? 'A Section 204 witness is someone who took part in a crime but is called by the State to testify against others involved. In giving that testimony, they may have to admit their own role in the offence. In return, if the court finds that they answered all questions frankly and honestly, they can be granted indemnity, meaning that they cannot be prosecuted for that specific offence,' Lehlekiso said. She said Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act exists to make it possible for the State to use 'insider' evidence from accomplices to secure convictions against other offenders. Lehlekiso said the courts have demonstrated it is essentially a trade-off: the State gets crucial testimony and the witness gets protection from prosecution, provided that the witness tells the truth. When would the State opt for a Section 204 witness? 'The State would opt to use this mechanism when an accomplice's inside knowledge is crucial to proving the case, typically in organised crime, corruption, or gang-related cases. Sometimes, the only way to expose the full picture of a crime is to have someone who was a part of the crime explain what happened. 'Before questioning begins, the prosecutor must tell the court that the witness will have to give self-incriminating answers and must specify the offence involved. The court then explains the witness's obligations and rights, including that the witness must answer all questions honestly and that truthful testimony can lead to indemnity,' Lehlekiso said. What outcomes are there usually for Section 204 witnesses? Lehlekiso said there are two main possible outcomes: - Granted indemnity: 'At the end of the trial (courts have found that it is irregular to give the indemnity before the end of the case), the court decides whether the witness's evidence was frank, honest, and complete. If so, the witness is discharged from prosecution for the offence in question,' she said. - No indemnity: 'If the court believes the witness lied, withheld information, or gave unsatisfactory evidence, the protection falls away and they can be prosecuted.' Are most Section 204 witnesses granted indemnity? 'Most are granted indemnity because prosecutors typically choose witnesses they believe will cooperate and tell the truth. But it's not automatic: the decision to grant indemnity rests with the court after hearing all the evidence,' Lehlekiso said. She said, the law is clear: a Section 204 witness is not expected to tailor evidence to suit the State. They are only expected to give frank and honest answers. 'Early promises of indemnity are discouraged because they can prejudice the trial. Importantly, the protection is earned through credibility and not given as a reward for helping the prosecution's case,' Lehlekiso added. It is also important to note that Section 204 and Section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act (deals with plea and sentence agreements) involve potentially implicating individuals. Section 204 specifically focuses on securing testimony through indemnity, while Section 105A focuses on plea bargains. Judge Nathan Erasmus is expected to deliver judgment soon. IOL
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
Pending criminal case costs applicant top court position in the Eastern Cape
The Labour Court ruled in favour of the Office of the Chief Justice for not recommending a candidate for a job as court manager. Image: File The failure to disclose a pending criminal case when asked to do so during a job application can have dire consequences, as an applicant who applied for the position of a court manager discovered. Siphephelo Luthuli applied for two posts in the Eastern Cape as court manager. He was recommended as he was deemed the best candidate. He denied on his application form that he had a criminal record or any pending cases against him. But it was later discovered that there was a pending case relating to alleged driving under the influence of alcohol. The Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) then withdrew its recommendation that Luthuli get the job. Luthuli took the matter on review before an arbitrator, who ruled in his favour and found that the OCJ was guilty of unlawful labour practice. The OCJ was ordered to compensate him by paying him R61,000, but the office took the matter on review to the Gqeberha Labour Court. 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 The court was told that in 2019, the OCJ advertised two positions for court managers at the Bhisho and Mthatha High Courts. Luthuli applied, and he was required to indicate if he had ever been convicted of a criminal offence or whether any cases were pending, and his response was 'no'. The OCJ, however, subsequently established that he was arrested in respect of a case of driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Luthuli conceded that he knew about the matter but relied on the fact that the matter was not enrolled by the prosecutor's office. According to the police, the matter was still under investigation. The panel that interviewed him considered the matter and felt he had to disclose that the matter was still pending. As a result, they withdrew their recommendation for his appointment. The arbitrator found this to be irrational, arbitrary, and capricious and ordered that the OCJ compensate Luthuli. The arbitrator found that the definition of 'pending case' or 'pending' was not informed by an objective definition either provided for in legislation or policy.
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
Crowdfunded gift for Lt-Gen Mkhwanazi redirected to SAPS Education Trust
Supporters donated over R44,000 via a BackaBuddy campaign originally intended to 'buy two cows' for Mkhwanazi as a symbol of gratitude. The funds will now be redirected to support the children of fallen officers. Image: Doctor Ngcobo / Independent Newspapers The South African Police Service (SAPS) has confirmed that funds raised in a BackaBuddy campaign to 'buy two cows' for KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi will be donated to the South African Police Service Education Trust (SAPSET), pending official approval. The crowdfunding campaign was launched by social media users last month as a gesture of appreciation for Mkhwanazi. The campaign exceeded its initial target of R35,000, raising a total of R44,074. It followed Mkhwanazi's explosive allegations of political interference and the shielding of criminals within SAPS. According to Mkhwanazi, senior police officials, including Police Minister Senzo Mchunu who is currently on a special leave - interfered in politically sensitive investigations and orchestrated the disbanding of elite anti-corruption units. He accused Lt-Gen Shadrack Sibiya, deputy national commissioner for crime detection (currently on leave), of colluding with North West information dealer Brown Mogotsi and Mchunu to dismantle the KZN political killings task team. The unit was disbanded in March 2025, effectively suspending 121 active dockets, many of which were linked to politically motivated killings. Mkhwanazi presented WhatsApp messages, SAPS documents and cellphone records to support his claims. 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 In response to the allegations, Mchunu argued in a letter dated December 2024 to National Police Commissioner Gen Fannie Masemola that the unit had "outlived its usefulness." Following the revelations, President Cyril Ramaphosa placed Mchunu on special leave and established a Judicial Commission of Inquiry to investigate the allegations. Professor Firoz Cachalia has since been appointed as acting Police Minister. The Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) Cluster confirmed that Mkhwanazi is awaiting formal approval from the office of the National Commissioner General Fannie Masemola to have the donated funds transferred to SAPSET. 'The Office of the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, is awaiting approval from the Office of the National Commissioner to allow donated BackaBuddy funds, raised through a donation campaign by prominent X app accounts, to be deposited into the South African Police Service Education Trust (SAPSET) account, as per the directive of the Provincial Commissioner,' the JCPS Cluster said in a statement. Once approved, the funds will be used to support the educational needs of children of police officers who died in the line of duty. 'Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi extends his sincere gratitude to everyone for their generous support and contributions,' the statement continued SAPS national spokesperson Brig Athlenda Mathe confirmed the same. 'Once the approval has been granted, the money will be used to pay for fees, books and uniforms of children whose mothers and fathers died on duty,' Mathe wrote on X (formerly Twitter). The SAPSET, which was established in 2010 has assisted more than 1,000 bereaved children with their education.
