Johannesburg - The first state capture trial has been withdrawn after acting Bloemfontein High Court Judge Nompumelelo Gusha ruled last Friday that the accused in the high-profile case linked to the R24.9 million Nulane Investments case be acquitted.
The ruling was based on a Section 174 discharge, which is granted when the accused proved that the state has failed to make its case. According to the judgment, the National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) prosecution failed to meet even the barest of thresholds and could not supply sufficient (prima facie) evidence for all three counts, namely contravention of the Public Finance Management Act, the intentional commitment of fraud, and the commitment of collusion.
Gusha also criticised the poor manner in which the investigation was handled. Gusha referred to the lead investigator Mandla Mtolo’s mismanagement of case documents as a “comedy of errors” which led to them being found inadmissible.
“What the court instead heard was the ineptitude of the investigators and indeed the lackadaisical manner in which evidence and disputed documents were (sic) handled, a government department who seemingly evinced a wilful disregard to the manner in which official documents were to be kept and archived,” the judgment stated.
Even without the investigator’s ineptitude, it appears that the prosecution did not have a leg to stand on in the first place. Counts 1 and 2 hinged on documents that were submitted by Free State agriculture department official Shadrack Cezula as part of a feasibility study process, as well as procurement documents between Nulane Investments and the Free State Department of Agriculture, invoices from Nulane Investments and the feasibility report that was submitted by Deloitte.
State witnesses proved to be unreliable; the state’s evidence is largely based on copies of documents, and many witnesses called upon to authenticate them failed to do so. The copy of the report that the Deloitte witnesses Omri Van Zyl and W Botha produced was doctored: the document was altered and showed numerous track changes.
Count 3 depended on the doctrine of common purpose to prove that the accused unlawfully colluded and conspired to launder money. The judge notes that “it is an inescapable fact that almost R25 million of taxpayer money left the fiscus”, the State could not attest to what happened to that money. It could not prove any common purpose to collude between the accused.
Gusha granted seven of the accused the application of discharge they launched previously. The seven are former Free State government officials Peter Thabethe and Seipati Dhlamini, businessman Iqbal Sharma and his brother-in-law Dinesh Patel, Gupta enterprise employee Ronica Ragavan, and companies Islandsite Investment One Hundred and Eighty and Nulane Investments.
The seven accused applied for a discharge in terms of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The seven believed the State failed to produce evidence that required a defence from them. Limakatso Moori, the former head of the Free State Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, was the only one who did not apply for discharge, but Gusha also found her not guilty and acquitted her as well.
The eight accused were on trial for charges including fraud, corruption, and money laundering in connection with the R24.9 million feasibility study that led to the Vrede Dairy project, which cost the Free State Department of Agriculture more than R280 million. Outside the court, Sharma said that democracy is at stake when the court is used to settle political scores.
“Politically-driven prosecutions are going to be the bane of this democracy. It is a disappointing indictment of the State when the State tries to fight political battles through the courts. This case shows that the judiciary at least is independent and strong.”
“South Africans need to be aware of the false narrative they are being fed about State Capture. This case is the first example of the truth coming to light, and the truth about State Capture will ultimately reveal itself,” stated Sharma.
Asked to comment on the ruling, NPA spokesperson Mthunzi Mhaga said the questions should be referred to Investigating Directorate spokesperson Sindisiwe Seboka who did not respond.