Latest news with #CapeHighCourt
The Citizen
5 days ago
- Business
- The Citizen
EFF files urgent interdict to stop proposed fuel levy hike
In his budget speech, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana announced the fuel levy would take effect on 4 June. Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana is facing another legal challenge after the EFF filed court papers in a bid to halt a proposed increase in fuel levies. This is the latest twist in a months-long tussle over the budget after the value-added tax (VAT) debacle. Fuel levy In his budget speech last week, Godongwana announced a fuel levy increase of 16c for petrol and 15c for diesel, which would take effect on June 4. Godongwana stated that the levy increase was the only new tax proposal in the third version of his budget. He, however, did note that this alone will not close the fiscal gap over the medium term. The levies are part of the government's revenue generation for 2025-26, following the withdrawal of the 0.5 percentage point increase in VAT in April. ALSO READ: Treasury reverses proposed VAT hike, will remain at 15% Legal challenge In papers filed in the Western Cape High Court, the EFF stated that it wrote to Godongwana, arguing that raising the fuel levy would harm the poorest South Africans and undermine economic growth. 'We took this action after repeated efforts to caution the minister and appeal to his conscience failed. We wrote to the Minister, urging him to consider the impact of this increase on the poor and working-class people of South Africa, especially during a time when the cost-of-living crisis is deepening. 'We also reminded him that, just like the VAT increase, raising the fuel levy without introducing a proper Money Bill is unlawful and undermines parliamentary oversight,' the EFF said. Letters to parliament The EFF said it has also written to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, and the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance, Dr Joseph Maswanganyi, about the fuel levy hike. 'We warned them that if parliament proceeds to adopt the 2025 Fiscal Framework and Revenue Proposals that include this illegal fuel levy increase, the entire budget process will be placed in jeopardy, the party said. 'Allowing such an increase without a Money Bill risks the entire national budget being declared invalid by the courts, potentially long after funds have already been spent. 'This would severely damage the constitutional standing of parliament, undermine financial accountability, and cause serious consequences for service delivery and public confidence in government,' the EFF said. What is the fuel levy? The EFF has warned that failure to comply with these demands may result in further legal action. The fuel levy is a tax charged on every litre of fuel sold, with a portion going to the government and another to the Road Accident Fund (RAF levy) to compensate victims of motor vehicle accidents. It amounts to 18% of the retail price, while the RAF levy is about 10%. This has remained unchanged since 2022 to mitigate the effects of higher inflation resulting from increased fuel prices. ALSO READ: EFF calls for 'apartheid tax' counter instead of VAT hike [VIDEO]
The Citizen
30-04-2025
- The Citizen
Joshlin Smith trial: Lombard 'fooled' three police officers
The defence has argued that the state failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Stevano van Rhyn's defence attorney, Nobahle Mkabayi, told the Western Cape High Court in Saldanha on Wednesday that the state relied on Lourentia 'Rens' Lombard's 'inconsistent' evidence to prove its case. The trial involving Joshlin's mother, Racquel 'Kelly' Smith, and her co-accused, Jacquen 'Boeta' Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn, continued on Wednesday. Both the state and defence delivered their closing arguments. Mkabayi took the stand and told Judge Nathan Erasmus that the state had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and only relied on 'speculation' from a witness who previously admitted to being high when Joshlin went missing. ALSO READ: Joshlin Smith trial: State insists 6-year-old was sold for R20k in closing arguments Joshlin disappeared from the family's home in Saldanha Bay on 19 February 2024. All the suspects have pleaded not guilty to the charges. Mkabayi: 'Key witness is a liar' Mkabayi disputed the credibility of the prosecution's key witness, Lourentia 'Rens' Lombard, and said the state failed to conduct proper investigations. She questioned how Lombard remained quiet through the alleged assaults and torture, and only confessed several months later. ALSO READ: Joshlin Smith trial: 'Why does your truth differ?' — State questions suspect's claims of police abuse 'We've got this 204 [Lombard] who was arrested on 13 March and appeared in court and didn't confess. From March to 21 October 2024, the same person who was tortured seven months before says, 'Now I can confess'. That alone says a lot about this 204,' Mkabayi told the court. The defence told the court that Lombard went through at least three police officers and told them the same story, only to later admit that she had lied because she was scared. 'When confronted under cross-examination, she said, 'No, I was scared' – scared of what? 'I was scared, maybe I had a relapse of drugs, so that's why I lied.' What surprised me more was that she knew she was lying and continued. In fact, she fooled an officer. That's the 204 we have before this court. ALSO READ: Joshlin Smith trial: Accused says he was hung up and beaten by police before confession 'As if that was not enough, she went to do the confession. These people who took her statement and confession are trained; they are the pride of our country – law enforcement officers. We've got a 204, for the second time, who lied before an officer. She then appeared before Captain Lombard and did not stop lying. When her statement was brought before this court, it didn't stand the test of cross-examination.' Lombard's 'lies and contradictions' Mkabayi said Lombard's testimony was filled with lies, contradictions and inconsistencies. 'If we take the defence when she first appeared, that she was relapsing from drugs, was she even relapsing from drugs after seven months on 21 October when she lied? Was she still relapsing when she lied before Captain Philip Seekoei? No. I asked her, 'Do you believe in God? Were you brought up in a Godly family?' She said 'yes, my parents told me about God.' I asked her, 'Do you know the consequences of lying?' She said 'yes'. She even said, 'My teachers at school told me about God and the consequences of lying.' But she didn't stop lying. 'We cross-examined her; she lied to my colleague for Appollis, and she lied to me and my colleague for Kelly Smith. Now, surprisingly, the state is convincing the court: 'Now that I have failed to prove the elements of kidnapping and trafficking, please, let us convict the three on speculation.' Where is that coming from? They're relying on the evidence led by 204, who lied and fooled three police officers.' Joshlin trial: 'When did it become a crime to sell a microwave?' Mkabayi said her client, Van Rhyn, was selling a microwave the day Joshlin went missing. His only sin was visiting his friends, who are also accused in the case. The state used the fact that the accused were together to prove that they were discussing selling Joshlin to a sangoma. 'My client didn't deliver Joshlin. They didn't prove that. They didn't prove intent and unlawfulness,' said Mkabayi. ALSO READ: Joshlin Smith trial: 'I've made an order,' judge tells defence as proceedings get tense 'My learned colleague argued yesterday that there was an act. What act? Who acted? When? With whom? When you traffic, you don't do it alone; there is always another person. Where was this act, and with whom? Silence. 'My client on the 19th was selling a microwave. When did it become a crime in South Africa to sell a microwave? When did it become a crime in South Africa to visit your friend? I would argue that the common purpose was to sell a microwave, not to kidnap and traffic anyone. My colleague argued that Joshlin was delivered for the purpose of exploitation for slavery. By who? Where? Who are the exploiters? We want to know. 'For four hours, I was listening for the state to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. No compelling evidence before this court, no strong evidence before this court suggesting that my client committed an offence of trafficking in person, kidnapping or any conspiracy. 'There is no evidence before this court that my client delivered Joshlin to anyone for any amount. My learned colleagues noticed that they failed to discharge the onus. They're pleading with this court to convict Van Rhyn on speculation drawn from the evidence of a 204.' READ NEXT: Joshlin Smith trial: Defence grills investigating officer
TimesLIVE
30-04-2025
- TimesLIVE
'Key state witness in Joshlin Smith trial is an opportunist', says defence
Raquel 'Kelly' Smith's defence attorney on Wednesday accused the state's key witness in her kidnapping and human trafficking trial of being an opportunist who 'only looked out for her own interest'. Attorney Rinesh Sivnarain told the Western Cape High Court sitting in Saldanha Bay Lourentia 'Renz' Lombaard — once good friends with his client — had used Smith to her advantage. Lombaard, a former co-accused in the case, became a section 204 witness — a person implicated in a crime but allowed to testify truthfully against other accused in exchange for indemnity from prosecution. Smith, her boyfriend Jacquin 'Boeta' Appollis and Steveno van Rhyn are accused of being behind the disappearance of six-year-old Joshlin Smith on February 19 2024. They pleaded not guilty. The court previously heard that of the three accused and Lombaard, Smith was the only one who worked to provide for her family and feed her and Appollis' drug addiction. Sivnarain said during Lombaard's cross-examination it emerged she often sustained her children by asking Smith for food. Lombaard, he argued, was an opportunist and only decided to tell the truth seven months after being arrested because she was expecting to be given money by Smith which she had agreed to. 'When Lombaard made these confessions she expected to receive some benefit and therefore only looked out for her own interest,' said Sivnarian. Lombaard had 'thrown Smith under the bus' to save herself and had many opportunities to come clean about the truth but continued to lie 'even when given her last opportunity'. Prosecutor Zelda Swanepoel said during her closing arguments on Tuesday that despite discrepancies in Lombaard's evidence, she was a credible witness. 'The most reliable and most important corroboration for Lombaard's testimony is that of [another witness Nico] Coetzee.' Swanepoel said Coetzee specifically referred to R20,000. Lombaard testified overhearing Smith tell Appollis, ' Hier is die geld wat ek by die sangoma gekry het [here is the money I got from the sangoma]'. Smith answered R20,000 when he asked how much. The court heard the same amount was mentioned in Appollis' and Van Rhyn's statements. However, Sivnarain argued that when Coetzee told his employers Tertia and Johan Kruger about the plan Smith had relayed to him, he only mentioned the plan, nothing about Joshlin being taken away.
