S v Dawjee and Others (CC45/2015) [2018] ZAWCHC 62 (19 February 2018)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAWCHC 62
|

|

S v Dawjee and Others (CC45/2015) [2018] ZAWCHC 62 (19 February 2018)

“
REPORTABLE
”
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN
CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
CASE
NO:  CC45/2015
In
the matter between:
THE
STATE
and
MOHAMMED
SALEEM
DAWJEE
Accused 1
TOWBARS
KING
Accused 2
TOWBARS
CAPE
Accused 3
ARNO
HEINRICH
LAMOER
Accused
4
DARIUS
VAN DER ROSS
Accused
5
KOLINDHREN
(“KOLLIN/COLLIN)
GOVENDER
Accused
6
LOGAMBAL
(“SHARON”)
GOVENDER
Accused
7
JUDGMENT:
19 FEBRUARY 2018
ALLIE,
J:
1.
At the
inception of the trial, the State alleged that the accused are guilty
of the following main charges:
Count
1
:
RACKETEERING
in contravention of section 2(1)(f) read with sections 1, 2(2) and 3
of the
Prevention
of Organised Crime Act, No 121 of 1998  (“POCA”):
Managing
an enterprise whilst knowing or ought reasonably to have known that
any person, whilst employed by or associated with that
enterprise,
conducts or participates in the conduct, directly or indirectly, of
such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern
of racketeering
activity.
[ACCUSED
1]
Count
2
:
RACKETEERING
in contravention of section 2(1)(e) read with sections 1, 2(2) and 3
of the
POCA:
Whilst
managing, employed by or associated with any enterprise, conducting
or participating in the conduct of such enterprise’s
affairs
through a pattern of racketeering activity.
[ACCUSED
1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7]
Counts
3 – 6
:
CORRUPTION
in contravention of section 4(1)(b) read with sections 1, 2, 4(2),
21, 25 and 26 of the
Prevention
and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 12 of 2004
(“PRECCAA”)  -  Corrupt activities relating
to
public officers  (offering or giving a gratification)
[ACCUSED
1; 2; 3]
Count
7
:
CORRUPTION
in contravention of section 4(1)(a) read with sections 1, 2, 4(2),
21, 24, 25 and 26 of the
PRECCAA
-  Corrupt activities relating to public officers
(Accepting or agreeing or offering to accept a gratification)
[ACCUSED
4]
Count
8
:
CORRUPTION
in contravention of section 4(1)(a) read with sections 1, 2, 4(2),
21, 24, 25 and 26 of the
PRECCAA
-
Corrupt activities relating to public officers  (Accepting or
agreeing or offering to accept a gratification)
[ACCUSED
5]
Count
9
:
CORRUPTION
in contravention of section 4(1)(a) read with sections 1, 2, 4(2),
21, 24, 25 and 26 of the
PRECCAA
-
Corrupt activities relating to public officers  (Accepting or
agreeing or offering to accept a gratification)
[ACCUSED 6]
Count
10
:
CORRUPTION
in contravention of section 4(1)(a) read with sections 1, 2, 4(2),
21, 24, 25 and 26 of the
PRECCAA
-  Corrupt activities relating to public officers
(Accepting or agreeing or offering to accept a gratification)
[ACCUSED
7]
Counts
11 – 15
:
CORRUPTION
in contravention of section 4(1)(b) read with sections 1, 2, 4(2),
21, 25 and 26 of the
PRECCAA
-
Corrupt activities relating to public officers  (offering or
giving a gratification)
[ACCUSED
1;2; 3]
Count
16
:
FRAUD
[ACCUSED
1; 2; 3]
Count
17
:
CONTRAVENTION
OF SECTION 31(1) READ WITH SECTIONS 120(1)(a) AND 121 OF THE FIREARMS
CONTROL ACT, NO. 60 OF 2000  (“FCA”)
Trading
in a firearm without a dealer’s license
[ACCUSED
1 AND 6]
Count
18
:
CONTRAVENTION
OF SECTION 3 READ WITH SECTIONS 120(1)(a) AND 121 OF THE
FIREARMS
CONTROL ACT
Possession
of firearm without a license
[ACCUSED
1 AND 6]
Count
19
:
CONTRAVENTION
OF
SECTION 120(9)(f)
OF THE
FIREARMS CONTROL ACT
Supplying
false particulars in a permit or authorization
[ACCUSED
1 AND 6]
Count
20
:
CONTRAVENTION
OF
SECTION 120(2)(a)
OF THE
FIREARMS CONTROL ACT
>
Failing
to report unlicensed possession of a firearm
[ACCUSED
1 AND 6]
Count
21
:
CONTRAVENTION
OF SECTION 120(1)(a), READ WITH
SECTION 6(1)(b)
OF THE
FIREARMS
CONTROL ACT
, , AND REGULATIONS 1(xix) AND 13(4)(a) OF THE FIREARMS
CONTROL REGULATIONS, 2004  (GN R345 IN GG 26156 OF 26.03.2004,
AS AMENDED)
A
person other than the relevant Designated Firearms Officer receiving,
completing and submitting an application for a license to
possess a
firearm
[ACCUSED
6]
Count
22
:
CONTRAVENTION
OF SECTION 90(a) READ WITH SECTIONS 120(1)(a), AND 121 OF THE
FIREARMS CONTROL ACT,
Possession
of ammunition without a license
[ACCUSED
1]
Count
23
:
CONTRAVENTION
OF SECTION 120(9)(e) READ WITH SECTIONS 120(1)(a), 117 AND 121 OF THE
FIREARMS CONTROL ACT,
>Using
a license issued in the name of another person to procure possession
of ammunition
[ACCUSED
1]
Count
24
:
CONTRAVENTION
OF SECTION 91(1) READ WITH SECTIONS 120(1)(b), 117 AND 121 OF THE
FIREARMS CONTROL ACT,
Possession
of more than 200 cartridges for a licensed firearm
[ACCUSED
1]
Count
25
:
DEFEATING
OR OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
[ACCUSED
1; 2; 3]
Count
26
:
FRAUD
[ACCUSED
1]
Count
27
:
DEFEATING
OR OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
[ACCUSED
1 AND 5]
Counts
28 – 109
:
MONEY
LAUNDERING
In
contravention of
section 4(a)
and/or (b), read with
sections 1
,
4
(i),
4
(ii) and
8
of the
POCA
[ACCUSED
1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7]
2.
During the
course of the presentation of the State’s case, a trial within
a trial was held to determine,
inter
alia
,
the fairness of the trial with specific reference to whether the
surveillance of the accused by the SAPS was lawful.
3.
Before the
conclusion of the trial within a trial, accused 1 through to 6
decided to change their pleas on certain counts from not
guilty to
guilty and to make certain admissions in terms of
section 220
of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
.
4.
The State
chose to accept the pleas in terms of
section 112(2)
and the court,
after having already considered the evidence led to date when it was
presented with the change of pleas, accepted
the pleas and convicted
the relevant accused on their pleas.
5.
The State
and defence brought an application to separate accused 7, who had not
changed her plea, from the remaining accused but
the court refused
the application on the grounds that no actual prejudice to accused 7
was found to exist.
6.
The State
and the defence brought an application for the acquittal of accused 7
on all counts that she had been charged with and
an acquittal of
accused 1 through to 6 on all counts that they had not pleaded guilty
to.
7.
The court
considered the application for acquittal.
8.
This
judgment contains the reasons for the conviction of the relevant
accused on the counts to which they pleaded guilty as well
as the
reasons for the acquittal of the relevant accused on the counts for
which they sought acquittals.
Law
Applicable to cases in which a plea is changed after evidence has
been adduced
9.
In
S
v Brown
2015 (1) SACR 211
(SCA)
at
[94] the Supreme Court of Appeal held as follows:
“
Change of
plea during a trial
[94] More than 25
years ago in
S v Mokhobo
1989 (1) SA 939
(A),
this court had
occasion to consider s 112 of the Act, in relation to it being
applied both at the commencement of proceedings,
as well as after the
state has led evidence and an accused has then elected to change his
plea from not guilty to guilty. At 943D
– E the following
appears:
'Artikel
112 vind normaalweg toepassing wanneer 'n beskuldigde by die aanvang
van 'n verhoor skuldig pleit. Daar is egter niks in
die artikel wat
spreek teen 'n aanwending van die bepalings daarvan indien 'n
beskuldigde wat aanvanklik onskuldig gepleit het
sy pleit wens te
verander nadat die Staat getuienis begin lei het nie — mits,
natuurlik, die aanklaer bereid is om op daardie
stadium 'n pleit van
skuldig te aanvaar. Dit mag dan egter nie nodig wees om die
beskuldigde te ondervra, of vir hom om in sy verklaring
erkennings te
maak, aangaande elemente van die misdaad wat reeds deur getuienis
bewys is nie.'
10.
The court
in
S v
Sethoga & Others 1990(1) SA 270 (A)
at
275 C-E, found that a court has the duty to determine the issues
raised by the accused’s initial plea of not guilty.
“
The
prosecutor cannot interfere with the exercise of that duty and compel
the Court”
11.
In
Brown’s
case
the Supreme Court of Appeal held as follows at [102]:
“
Having
regard to the authorities referred to above, Veldhuizen J was
obliged, when the plea was tendered, to consider whether the
plea
ought to be accepted, with particular regard being paid to the effect
of the evidence led up until that stage.
”
12.
At para
103, the court in
Brown
found that:
“
In
deciding on an appropriate sentence, the court below ought not to
have restricted itself to bare facts contained in the plea.
The
tendered plea does not provide enough context nor does it present
enough of a picture for the court to properly fulfil its
sentencing
function…. no regard can be had to evidence inconsistent with
the plea.
”
13.
In
conformity with the view expressed in the paragraph above, the
relevant evidence is summarised and evaluated for the purpose
of
taking account of the context it provides and to demonstrate why the
court accepts the pleas of guilty, where applicable and
how the court
arrives at its decision concerning the remaining charges on which
pleas of not guilty have been entered.
Summary
of evidence led
14.
Warrant
Officer Wynand Wessels,
the
forensic investigator’s relevant testimony is as follows:
Concerning
accused 4:
14.1.
A cheque of
R20 000 drawn on the account of accused 1 made payable to
accused 4 was eventually deposited into an African Bank
account of
accused 4 by way of internal bank credit transfer on 3 December 2011;
14.2.
A further
cheque of R7000 drawn on accused 1’s bank account made payable
to accused 4 was deposited into accused 4’s
ABSA bank account
on 7 February 2012;
14.3.
From
27/4/2012 to 1/5/2012, accused 4 lived at Soeteweide Guest House and
he incurred costs of R3180 which was paid by accused 2;
14.4.
On 12
December 2012, a cash  cheque drawn on the bank account of
accused 2 for R15 000,00 was deposited into a Standard Bank
account
of accused 4;
14.5.
R2000 cash
was deposited into the bank account of accused 4 with the reference”
Mr Dawjee” on 5 January 2013;
14.6.
On 12 July
2013  a Mercedes Benz was rented by Accused 4’s daughter,
Dominique, for R10 149,30 from Cabs Car Hire
and the amount was
charged to the account of accused 2;
14.7.
On 19
August 2013, a cash cheque of R10 000,00 drawn on the bank
account of accused 1, was deposited into a Standard Bank account
of
accused 4.;
14.8.
On 3
September 2013, an amount of R4000,00 was paid on the Truworths
account of accused 4 which was from the First National Bank
credit
card of accused 1;
14.9.
On 3
September 2013, an amount of R4195,00 was paid on the Markhams
account of accused 4 from the First National Bank credit card
of
accused 1;
14.10.
The total
amount of financial benefit allegedly received by accused 4 from
either accused 1 or from one of the business entities
controlled by
accused 1 is R75 524,30;
14.11.
Of the
amount of R75 524,30 mentioned above, R54 000,00 were cash
payments/cheque deposits;
Concerning
accused 5:
14.12
Accused 5
declared in a financial disclosures form, a golf sponsorship by
accused 2 to the value of R4000,00 ;
14.13
On 11 May
2013, petrol in the amount of R697,10, was filled into a motor
vehicle owned by accused 5 and debited to the account of
accused 2
held at the petrol station;
14.14
On 16 June
2013, petrol in the amount of R704,25, was filled into a motor
vehicle owned by accused 5 and debited to the account
of accused 2
held at the petrol station;
14.15
On 22 June
2013, petrol in the amount of R673,00, was filled into a motor
vehicle owned by accused 5 and debited to the account
of accused 2
held at the petrol station;
14.16
On 6 July
2013, petrol in the amount of R478,65, was filled into a motor
vehicle owned by accused 5 and debited to the account of
accused 2
held at the petrol station;
14.17
On 15 July
2013, petrol in the amount of R771,60, was filled into a motor
vehicle owned by accused 5 and debited to the account
of accused 2
held at the petrol station;
14.18
The total
value of the alleged benefit to accused 5 as outlined above, is
R7324,60 of which R4000,00 is a declared golf sponsorship
and
R3324.60 is for petrol;
Concerning
Accused 6
14.19
On 28
February 2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a
cost of R3643,73, which was charged to the account of accused
2;
14.20
On 27 July
2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a cost of
R1352,15, which was charged to the account of accused
2;
14.21
On 13
August 2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a cost
of R1493,04, which was charged to the account of accused
2;
14.22
On 7
September 2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a
cost of R1352,20, which was charged to the account of accused
2;
14.23
On 18
September 2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6
at a cost of R2004,10, which was charged to the account
of accused 2;
14.24
On 3
December 2012, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a
cost of R3754,25, which was charged to the account of accused
2;
14.25
On 4 April
2013, a motor vehicle was rented by accused  6 at a cost of
R955,50 which was charged to the account of accused
2;
14.26
On 25 June
2013, petrol in the amount of R 516,85, was filled into a vehicle
owned by accused 6 and debited to the account of accused
2 held at a
petrol station;
14.27
On 4 July
2013, a Renault Clio motor vehicle, valued at R167400,20, was
registered in the name of accused 2 but it bore the registration

number “ KIRSH WP” and it was used by Kirshia Govender,
the daughter of accused 6 and 7;
14.28
On 24
August 2013, Mango Flight tickets valued at R2218,00 for Kirshia
Govender was paid from the First National Bank credit card
account of
accused 1;
14.29
On 4
October 2013, petrol in the amount of R 468,05, was filled into the
Renault Clio and debited to the account of accused 2 held
at a petrol
station;
14.30
On 10
October 2013, a Mango flight ticket valued at R1325,00 for accused 6
was paid from the First National Bank credit card account
of accused
1;
14.31
A Toyota
Tazz motor vehicle’s registration was transferred from the name
of Kirshia to the name of accused 2 on 5 July 2013;
14.32
Over the
period  21 November 2011 to March 2013, accused 1 paid for
maintenance of the pool at the home of accused 6 and 7
in a total
amount of R5777,00;
14.33
The total
value of the benefit to accused 6 is calculated at R192,260,00;
14.34
The
benefits received by accused 6 and 7’s daughter and the pool
maintenance at the joint home of accused 6 and 7 were apportioned

equally between accused 6 and 7;
Concerning
accused 7:
14.35
On 24
February 2012 a cash deposit of R3000 was made into her Nedbank
account with a reference bearing accused 1’s name.
14.36
On 7 June
2012 a cash deposit of R5000 was made into accused 7’s bank
account bearing a reference with accused 1’s name.
14.37
On 30
November 2012 a cash deposit of R3000 was made into the bank account
of accused 7 bearing a reference of accused 1’s
name.
14.38
On 2
January 2013 a BMW 3 series car with a contract value of R490 919,00
was registered in the name of accused 7 with accused
1 signing as
surety and co-principal debtor. Accused 1 also arranged for the
payments for the vehicle to be deducted by debit order
from his bank
account.
14.39
On 14 March
2013 a cash cheque to the value of R10 000 drawn on a bank
account of accused 1 was cashed by accused 7.
14.40
On 22 March
2013 a BMW 5 series vehicle with a contract value of R669 001,66
was bought on the name of accused 7 with accused
1 signing as surety
and co-principal debtor and authorising the payments for the vehicle
to be deducted by debit order from his
bank account.
14.41
On 14 April
2013 a motor vehicle to the value of R955,50 was hired by P Govender,
the son of accused 6 and 7 and the amount for
the hire was charged to
the account of accused 2.
14.42
On 25 May
2013 petrol to the value of R760,25 was put into a vehicle owned by
accused 7 at a petrol station and it was charged to
the account of
accused 2.
14.43
On 14 June
2013 petrol to the value of R672,35 was put into a vehicle owned by
accused 7 at a petrol station and it was charged
to the account of
accused 2.
14.44
On 25 June
2013 petrol to the value of R725,00 was put into a vehicle owned by
accused 7 at a petrol station and it was charged
to the account of
accused 2.
14.45
On 25 June
2013 petrol to the value of R516,85 petrol was put into a vehicle
owned by accused 7 at a petrol station and it was charged
to the
account of accused 2.
14.46
On 4 July
2013 a Renault Clio to the value of R 167 400, 20 used by
accused 6 and 7’s daughter was used registered in
the name of
accused 2.
14.47
On 24
August 2013 Mango flights for accused 6 and 7’s daughter to the
value of R2218,00 was paid from accused 1’s credit
card
account.
14.48
On 29
September 2013 petrol to the value of R300,00 was put into a vehicle
owned by accused 7 at a petrol station and it was charged
to the
account of accused 2.
14.49
On 4
October 2013 petrol to the value of R468,05 was put into a vehicle
driven by the daughter of accused 6 and 7 at a petrol station
and
charged to the account of accused 2.
14.50
During the
period October to November 2013 the maintenance of the pool at the
home of accused 6 and 7 was paid for by accused 1.
14.51
The total
value of the benefits to accused 7 amount to R1360 713,86.
14.52
For the
period 4 January 2013 to 30 September 2013 accused 7 paid accused 1
R91 000 ostensibly for the debit orders of the
vehicles.
Cross
examination of Wessels
14.53
It was put
to him that accused 4 had cash with which to pay his clothing store
accounts but because accused 1 was with him, accused
1 wanted the
cash and paid the stores with his credit card. The witness could not
deny that.
14.54
It was put
to him that it was absurd to suggest that accused 5 would perpetrate
corruption for meagre amounts but the witness could
not comment on
that allegation.
14.55
Wessels
agreed with accused 5’s legal representative that the
prescribed form used for the disclosure or registrable interests
did
not make provision for the disclosure of loans or liabilities.
14.56
It was put
to Wessels that accused 6 and 7 are relatives of accused 1 and he
could not dispute it.
14.57
Wessels
could not dispute that accused 6 and 7’s son was not
financially dependant on them and was 26 years old at the time
when
accused 2 paid for a vehicle hired by him nor could he challenge the
proposition that accused 7 didn’t know about it.
14.58
Wessels
agreed that accused 6 and 7’s daughter was an adult at the time
when the Renault Clio vehicle was purchased for her.
He couldn’t
deny that Kirshia entered into an agreement with accused 1 and 2 for
the purchase of the vehicle and sold her
Toyota Tazz to accused 2.
14.59
Wessels
could not dispute that accused 6 paid Alphera Financial Services for
the balance of Kirshia’s motor vehicle.
14.60
He didn’t
dispute that accused 7 re-paid accused 1 for the instalments he
caused to be made on the vehicles initially.
14.61
Wessels
admits that the Toyota Tazz owned by Kirshia was transferred to
accused 2.
14.62
It was put
to Wessels during cross examination that he is not an auditor, which
he admitted, nor independent. He denied that it
is unusual for an
independent auditor not to be used in a case of this kind.
14.63
Wessels
could not dispute the proposition that is also contained in accused
7’s plea, that the BMW vehicles were bought by
accused 7 but
were for the benefit of accused 6.
14.64
He couldn’t
dispute that accused 7 was not aware that petrol for the BMW vehicles
were paid by accused 2 because the vehicles
were driven by accused 6.
14.65
He conceded
that the BMW 320 was traded in and replaced by the BMW 520 and
accused 7 didn’t have the two vehicles simultaneously.
14.66
It was also
put to him that it was incorrect to apportion the total contract
value of the vehicles purchased by accused 7 as a benefit
but he said
that he believed that but for accused 1’s assistance, accused 7
and her daughter would not have been able to
obtain vehicles to that
value, hence he apportioned the full contract value even though the
vehicles remain under the ownership
of the finance company concerned
until it was full paid up.
14.67
He admitted
that the schedule to the indictment contain certain payments for pool
maintenance that are duplicated for accused 6
and 7.
14.68
He couldn’t
dispute the proposition that payments to the value of R21 000,00
made by accused 1 to accused 7 were made
prior to transfer of the
Toyota Tazz to accused 2, but in compensation for the Toyota Tazz
Brigadier
Thiruvasigi Hansraj formerly Asaram
15.
This
witness was the alleged whistle-blower. She was the station commander
of Goodwood Police Station when she allegedly uncovered
cause for
concern about the behaviour of the accused.
16.
As part of
her liaison duties towards local business persons in the area of
Goodwood Station, she met accused 1 after he allegedly
requested to
meet her.
17.
Accused 1
told her to ensure that officer Theunis is given a better vehicle. He
also invited her to his home for breakfast. He said
that accused 6
and 7 as well as Lennit Max would attend but she declined the
invitation.
18.
On 14
February 2012, while she was on leave she received a call from Lt Col
Vlok who was distressed because accused 1 asked him
to provide
feedback on a docket involving the alleged illegal possession of a
firearm by a young man who was driving with his deceased
father’s
firearm in his vehicle and was arrested. Accused 1 allegedly used
foul language while threatening to harm a certain
Capt Engelbrecht in
a telephonic conversation that he was allegedly having with accused
5, who was the cluster commander in that
area.
19.
Capt
Engelbrecht approached the witness to complain about the rude
behaviour of accused 1. The witness advised her to either open
a
complaint docket or speak to accused 5 since accused 1 was allegedly
speaking to accused 5 at the time. Capt Engelbrecht spoke
to accused
5.
20.
The suspect
in the illegal possession of a firearm docket is Dillon Chetty who
accused 1 said was his nephew. He alleged that he
was granted
permission by accused 6 to bring the firearm to Goodwood SAPS so that
it could be destroyed. The witness explained
that the normal
procedure was not to expect an unlicensed member of the public to
bring the firearm to the police station but police
officers would
instead fetch the firearm themselves. The case against Dillon Chetty
was eventually withdrawn because the ballistics
expert who had to
testify couldn’t be found.
21.
On 20
February 2012 accused 1 arrived at the Goodwood Police station and
asked to speak to the witness. He told her that he was
there because
the provincial Inspectorate of the SAPS was coming to do an
inspection of that station because it’s the most
racist
station. He said that his brother, Colonel Naidoo would form part of
the inspection. She was astonished that a civilian
had so much
insight into a SAPS inspection. As it subsequently transpired, the
inspection was postponed to 22 February.
22.
She told
accused 1 that she received a complaint about him being abusive
towards Colonel Engelbrecht. Accused 1 became angry and
demanded that
Colonel Vlok come to the witness’ office immediately. He said
he wanted to f… up Col Vlok. Accused 1
was breathing heavily
and looked somewhat ill. Her secretary brought accused 1 a glass of
water. Accused 1 wanted to call accused
4 to say that he was going to
be late for a meeting and asked the witness to call accused 4. She
dialled the number and then gave
the phone to accused 1. Accused 1
told accused 4 that he should remember the discussion they had that
weekend about Goodwood SAPS
and also said he would fetch accused 4’s
daughter. Accused 1 asked her to call accused 5 but he didn’t
answer his phone.
Then he asked her to call accused 7 which she did.
He spoke to accused 7 and so did the witness. Accused 7 asked her to
give accused
1 sugar water, to escort him to his car and to calm him
down as he was diabetic. The witness indeed calmed accused 1 down and
saw
him leave the building but he returned later. She was surprised
to see him again but he wanted feedback on the firearm case of Dillon

Chetty. Accused 5 walked into her office with accused 1. She called
Col Vlok and the branch commander, Col Izaks to provide feedback.

In the docket she found a statement signed by accused 6 in which he
said that accused 1 called him about a deceased person’s

firearm that he wanted to have transferred onto the name of the son
of the deceased. Accused 6 allegedly told accused 1 that the
son
should hand the firearm into the police for destruction. She called
accused 5 aside and told him about how accused 1 insulted
Col
Engelbrecht. She went back into her office where accused 1,
Engelbrecht, Izaks and accused 5 were all present.  Accused
5
told the witness that she called the meeting but she didn’t
call a meeting with accused 1 but did so with accused 5.  Accused

5 began reading from the firearm docket to accused 1. Accused 1 asked
Vlok why he had carried tales to the witness. He accused
Vlok of
being racist and telling lies. Vlok became tearful. Vlok felt
uncomfortable because accused 5 didn’t stop accused
1. Accused
1 received a phone call and he said that it was from accused 4. He
complained to the person on the phone about Goodwood
SAPS. Then he
said he would pick Dominique up and he would see accused 4 later at
dinner. Vlok took out his firearm and placed
it on the table. He told
accused 5 that he could transfer him anywhere, while crying.  The
witness asked Col Izaks to accompany
Vlok out of her office. The
witness told accused 1 that his behaviour was incorrect. Then only
did accused 5 also tell accused
1 that his behaviour is wrong and he
should leave.
23.
Later after
she thought accused 1 had left, he returned to her office for a third
time while holding his arm around a crying Vlok.
Accused 1 said he
had apologised to Vlok and he kissed Vlok and said there was no case
going to be made. Accused 1 looked comfortable
as though he was in
his terrain and Vlok looked uncomfortable and flushed.
24.
After
accused 1 left her office for the third time, he met Capt Engelbrecht
on the stairs, who didn’t greet him. Accused 1
came to her
office for a fourth time to complain that Engelbrecht didn’t
greet him. By then she was tired and told accused
1 that she would
deal with it later.
25.
On 24
February 2012 accused 5 asked the witness to attend a meeting at
accused 1’s shop as it’s a meeting with business
people
regarding crime in the area. When she arrived at accused 1’s
shop, she was told that accused 5 was in accused 1’s
office
with him. She found accused 5 relaxed on a couch drinking cappuccino
and there were no other business people present. Accused
1 said that
the meeting was about crime around his premises. She produced
statistics which showed that was no high crime incidents
in that
sector. The police strategy was to deploy patrol vehicles in the
geographical blocks that were crime hotspots. Accused
5 said that the
witness must explain the strategy to accused 1, which she did but
accused 1 became irritated. Accused 1 said that
the witness must
inflate the statistics so that there could be more patrols around his
business. Accused 5 also explained the strategy
to accused 1. Accused
1 said that certain police members must be transferred. The witness
said that the meeting is becoming out
of order and that she was going
to excuse herself from it. She stood up. Accused 5 didn’t
complain about her wanting to leave.
Accused 1 complained and said
she had no respect for accused 5. Accused 1 said that accused 5
should be more like accused 7 and
accused 4. She walked out followed
by accused 1 who showed her missing drain covers and belaboured his
complaints. She told him
she’ll step up patrols if he has
concerns about drain covers being stolen.
26.
Later
accused 1 called her to apologise for his behaviour because his wife
asked him to do so.
27.
Accused 5
called the witness while she was on her way to a meeting to tell her
that there was a burglary at accused 1’s business
premises and
accused 1 complained of poor service delivery by Goodwood SAPS.
28.
She later
discovered that accused 1 had not reported the burglary but his
secretary had called the Goodwood station, asked for the
witness, who
was not in and hung up without reporting the burglary. She arranged
telephonically for a vehicle to go out to the
premises of accused 1.
Later accused 1 called the witness to say that accused 4 told him to
instruct the witness herself to come
out to his business. She
explained that she was in a meeting but accused 1 wasn’t happy.
She sent Capt Dickerson to accused
1. After her meeting she asked
accused 5 whether she should still attend at accused 1’s
business premises and he said that
she should. She didn’t
believe it was necessary because police policy was to give priority
to armed robberies and murders
first and not burglaries. She
nonetheless went to accused 1’s business. She was told that the
burglar alarm wasn’t
on at the time of the burglary and the
cameras were not working either. No inventory was kept of the stock
but she was told that
approximately one million rand’s worth of
stock was stolen.
29.
On 20 March
2012 there was an armed robbery at a business called Fish 4 Africa.
She received a report from Warrant Officer
Wilson to the effect that
while she was attending the crime scene, accused 1 arrived and opened
fridges and potentially contaminated
the crime scene. Wilson claimed
that accused 1 was aggressive.
30.
Accused 1
invited the witness to lunches and places where other senior police
officers would attend but the witness declined the
invitations.
Accused 1 called her a cheeky Indian woman with an attitude.
31.
It bothered
her that accused 1 expected preferential treatment and appeared to
have so much influence and knowledge in the police
force.
32.
Under
normal circumstances she would have approached the cluster commander
and the Provincial Commissioner of Police about her concerns
but
because accused 1 appeared to have a cosy relationship with them, she
couldn’t approach them.
33.
In her
first encounter with accused 1 he told her that members of Goodwood
SAPS came to his business to fit tow-bars and for favours
and that he
helped an officer whose house had burned down. The witness told
accused 1 not to entertain police members.
34.
She decided
to register her concerns about accused 1 and his relationship with
accused 4,5, 6 and 7, the expectations he had of
preferential
treatment and his behaviour in an Inquiry Docket which she opened and
registered with Col Izaks. She didn’t
mention the names of
accused 4 and 5 in the docket because she didn’t want to expose
them then.
35.
That same
evening after she registered the inquiry, accused 5 called her and
asked what the inquiry was about. She told him that
she’s not
at liberty to discuss it with him. Sergeant Jaftha, who is now
accused 5’s wife, was then working at the
detective branch of
Goodwood SAPS.
36.
The
following day the witness wasn’t at work.  She gave a
report to Major-General Mathope. She wanted to know what he
was going
to do with the information because she felt that she couldn’t
trust anyone. He said that he would take it to Pretoria
Head Office.
37.
When she
returned to work, she was warned to back off by Brigadier Solomons.
She felt alone because she couldn’t trust senior
officers and
junior officers wouldn’t come forward for fear of being
victimised.
38.
On 28
August 2012, her husband, to who she wasn’t yet married at the
time, Colonel Hansraj told her that there was a plot
to discredit her
with false accusations made by one, Nadeem, who sold cell-phones and
who alleged that she took cell-phones from
his business.
39.
She
arranged to meet Nadeem to discuss the allegation. He didn’t
arrive at the meeting place. Then she received a call from
Mrs
Dawjee, accused 1’s wife and that is when she discovered that
Nadeem was at accused 1’s business premises. When
she arrived
at accused 1’s business with Colonel Gouws, Nadeem was sitting
there fearfully while accused 1 spoke abusively
to him. Nadeem said
that the witness took nothing from him. Accused 1 threatened to beat
him up. Accused 1 said he thinks that
Nadeem knew of the conflict
between the witness and accused 1 and tried to impress accused 1 by
making false accusations against
the witness.
40.
On 10
September 2012 the witness met Mrs Dawjee and her son Zameer at their
request. They were unhappy about a search and seizure
operation that
had taken place at second accused’s business premises. Accused
1 arrived late at the meeting. He said something
about being a member
of PAGAD but the witness didn’t respond. It was put to her
during cross examination that accused 1 said
he was an affiliate of
PAGAD. Accused 1 said that Crime Intelligence was part of the
operation and he implied that that only happened
because her fiancé
,who is now her husband, works for Crime Intelligence.
41.
She denied
that she leaked the fact of the investigation of this case to the
media and said that the media could have heard about
the search and
seizure operation.
42.
She
received a Prestige award for excellent work performance for 2012 to
2013 because Goodwood wasn’t an under-performing
station and it
in fact performed quite well.
43.
According
to the witness police management didn’t take her inquiry
seriously initially. Instead, accused 4 caused police under
his
command to harass her by holding repetitive inspections at the
Goodwood police station. She endured duplicate inspections by
the
Police Inspectorate and by the Auditor-General. Goodwood police
station was belatedly included in a Project 21 which was designed
to
assist police stations that were struggling with high crime
statistics although Goodwood wasn’t in need of assistance
and
so it became Project 22. When she queried why Goodwood Police station
was included in the Project, accused 5 told her at a
meeting that the
reason why it was included was because of all the businesses in that
area that dealt with second hand goods. General
Jacobs informed her
that Goodwood police station was added to the project. He was accused
4’s deputy at the time. People
who formed part of the Projects
were first selected for training and she wasn’t part of that
selection initially.
44.
She begged
the police management, including those to who she reported the
inquiry, for feedback but it took a long time before she
received any
feedback. She was shunned by police leadership because she dared to
open an inquiry that implicated accused 4, 5 ,
6, & 7.
45.
She
eventually met with General Matakatha who actually ensured that her
inquiry was investigated. General Matakatha introduced her
to Colonel
Enus, the investigating officer in this case.
46.
The witness
lodged 4 grievances about the harassment she experienced after
reporting the inquiry but it didn’t receive satisfactory

attention. She lodged the second grievance because she wasn’t
happy with the result of the first grievance. That caused further

victimisation. General Jacobs suggested she enter into mediation but
she wasn’t satisfied with the outcome. The officers
who dealt
with her grievances worked under the command of accused 4 such as
General Jacobs, Brigadier Solomons, accused 7, Colonel
Buffels,
General Burger and General Van Wyk. There was a need to lodge the
third and fourth grievances because the first and second
grievances
were not adequately addressed and so the harassment escalated. She
receive feedback only that her fourth grievance was
sent to the
National Commissioner of Police. She received no correspondence
confirming receipt of her grievance from the National
Commissioner’s
office.
47.
She
believes the successive inspections were designed to divert her
attention away from the complaints that she had lodged in the
Inquiry
docket and she said that is how accused 4 misused his power.
48.
She said
that accused 1 used the tactic of speaking to accused 4 or 5 on the
phone in the presence of other police officers to show
that he was
connected and he had money and power.
49.
Officers at
Goodwood police station noticed a man parked in a car outside the
station for some hours. They asked him what he wants
and he said that
he wants to see the Indian lady and he was sent by accused 5. She
later discovered that he was a notorious gangster.
She believes his
visit was an act of intimidation.
50.
While she
was on sick leave, a Colonel Daniels was sent to sit in her office.
She was compelled to remove her belongings from her
office although
she was only booked off for a short while.
51.
She
confirmed during cross examination that accused 5 did also reprimand
accused 1 when he spoke rudely to Vlok.
52.
She
admitted that she didn’t hear accused 4 speak to accused 1 on
the phone when the latter held out that they were speaking
to one
another.
53.
During
cross examination, she readily conceded that throughout the
harassment that she alleged she experienced after she registered
the
inquiry, she didn’t avail herself of the mechanisms available
in the Protected Disclosures Act.
Colonel
Vernon Vlok
54.
He first
met accused 1 in 2007 when he was arranging sponsorship from business
people for the police soccer team. Accused 1 sponsored
meat for an
event of the soccer team.
55.
Accused 1
regularly complained about police members and about his businesses’
drain covers being stolen so he attended at
accused 1’s
business premises from time to time.
56.
He went to
accused 1’s business premises on 14 February 2012 with Warrant
Officer Theunis. Accused 1 was very upset and shouted
over a courier
service that arrived late. He told the witness that the service
delivery at Goodwood police station was poor and
he alleged that
Captain Engelbrecht is a racist. Accused 1 then allegedly used foul
language to describe how he was going to harm
Engelbrecht. Accused 1
then referred to Engelbrecht’s husband who is a Lt Col and said
that it is easy to have him transferred.
He spoke as though he had
the authority to have police officers transferred. Accused 1 said he
would call the provincial commissioner,
i.e. accused 4 but he wasn’t
available and then accused 1 called accused 4’s driver, Danie.
He asked the driver whether
they received the food and whether they
ate well. He also spoke about tyres that had to be fitted to a
vehicle. The witness could
hear the person on the other side of the
line laughing when asked whether they ate well. Accused 1 then said
he was going to call
accused 5 who was the Bellville cluster
commander at the time. He used some name on accused 5 and then he
told him about Engelbrecht
and how he wanted to harm her. He once
again used foul language when he mentioned Engelbrecht. At that point
the witness stood
up and walked outside because he found it
offensive. Accused 1 followed him outside and he told accused 1 that
he shouldn’t
speak about his fellow officers that way in his
presence. The witness climbed into the car which Theunis drove. As
they arrived
at the police station, he noticed some t-shirts on the
back seat of their car. He pleaded with Theunis to return the
t-shirts because
he realised that accused 1 had given it to Theunis.
He informed Capt. Engelbrecht and the station commander, Asaram (who
subsequently
married and became Brigadier T Hansraj) about what
accused 1 had said.
57.
On 20
February 2012, while sitting in his office, accused 1 walked in and
said he’s waiting for the police inspectorate to
do an
inspection at the Goodwood police station and accused 1 said that
he’s brother was part of the inspection.
58.
He found it
peculiar that a civilian would know about an internal police
inspection because it had nothing to do with the public.
There was an
inspection scheduled for later that week but not on that day.
59.
At
approximately midday on that same day Asaram called him to her
office. He found Izaks, Asaram, accused 5 and accused 1 in the

office.
60.
Accused 1
said he had a complaint. against Warrant Officer Nortje concerning an
investigation of illegal possession of a firearm.
He alleged that the
witness was also involved but the witness said that he wasn’t
part of that investigation. Accused 1 threatened
to bring a civil
claim against the police. Accused 1 then said that he didn’t
say the derogatory things about Engelbrecht
that the witness alleged
he had said.  The witness told the meeting verbatim what he
heard accused 1 say. During cross examination,
it was put to this
witness that both accused 1 and accused 5 deny that those words were
uttered. Accused 1 angrily alleged that
the witness is corrupt and he
is a pig. Accused 1 loudly reprimanded the witness for having told
Engelbrecht what accused 1 said
about her. He intimidated the
witness. Accused 1 said that the witness and Engelbrecht must be
separated.  The witness didn’t
feel well especially after
accused 1 said that he must die. He was upset that accused 5, his
cluster commander sat silently by
and allowed accused 1, a civilian
to speak to him that way. He took out his firearm and placed it on
the table and said that he
could be transferred anywhere. He went to
his office and closed the door. Izaks followed him in and said
accused 1 ought not to
have spoken that way. The witness was crying.
Approximately 10 minutes later accused 1 came into the witness’
office, kissed
him on the left side of his head and said he was
sorry. The witness walked to Asaram and told her that accused 1 had
apologised.
Later accused 1 asked him out for coffee but he declined.
61.
The next
day accused1 called him again and said he must come take down a
complaint against Engelbrecht but the witness didn’t
go to
accused 1.
62.
On 16 May
2012, accused 1 called the witness about drain covers that were
stolen. Accused 1 said that accused 5 suggested that he
call the
witness. He sent Warrant Officer Roman to accused 1.
63.
On 25
January 2012, when it was National Police Day, accused 5 had
organised a big walk from Bellville to Goodwood Civic Centre.
Station
commanders were seated in the hall as well as accused 1. Later
accused 1 confronted the witness and asked him why he left
the
meeting early when people still wanted to ask him questions. He
explained that his mother became ill.  He couldn’t

understand why he had to explain his absence to accused 1. He made a
statement for this case.
64.
He was
challenged during cross examination on how he could have heard the
voice on the other side of the telephone line when accused
1
purported to be speaking to accused 5. The witness said he heard the
sound of accused 5’s voice on the other side of the
line.
65.
He admitted
that he couldn’t hear what the person on the other side of the
line was saying.
66.
The witness
explained during cross examination that Theunis wasn’t present
throughout the conversation between accused 1 and
himself on 14
February 2012.
67.
He denied
that accused 1 called him to his business premises on 14 February
2012 to complaint about cases he made of stolen drain
covers and
other acts of vandalism that the police failed to keep a record of.
He could not recall the purpose of his visit on
that day but he also
explained that accused 1 often complained in general terms and
expected preferential treatment for his complaints
and he wanted
extra patrols around his business but the witness believed all people
should be treated the same.
Colonel Deidre
Engelbrecht
68.
She
received a report from Vlok about what accused 1 said about her. Her
duties included doing the grids, planning the areas of
operation and
setting aside focus areas for crime prevention.
69.
She felt
humiliated and embarrassed by what Vlok told her.
70.
On 20
February 2012, she didn’t greet accused 1 when she saw him walk
out of Asaram’s office.
71.
She was
questioned concerning accused 1’s allegation that when the
police fail to record the correct crime statistics, certain
areas
would not receive adequate patrols. She agreed that that could happen
but she didn’t believe that it happened at Goodwood
police
station.
72.
She agreed
that the statement that she made was given to Asaram and it wasn’t
commissioned in her presence and the date on
which it was
commissioned appears to be incorrect.
Captain
Wayne Barry Theunis
73.
He was the
communication officer and media liaison at Goodwood police station.
He met accused 1 who gave the police a donation when
they had a fun
run to raise funds. Asaram became the station commander in 2009.
During her tenure, there was only one occasion
when accused 1 was
asked to donate for a Mandela Day celebration where accused 1 donated
heaters. Asaram later stopped all donations
from anyone to the
police. He recalled that accused 1 complained about his drain covers
being stolen but he didn’t want to
lodge a formal complaint and
provide a statement. He remembered one occasion when he accompanied
Asaram to accused 1’s business
and they had a meeting inside
while he waited outside. When they came out, accused 1 told Asaram
that she must give the witness
a new car. It did strike him as
strange that accused 1 involved himself so much with police matters.
74.
The witness
confirmed that he accompanied Vlok to accused 1’s business on
14 February 2012. He heard accused 1 say Goodwood
police station is
the most racist; that Colonel Engelbrecht was a racist and she
allegedly only provides overtime for her friends.
Accused 1 said he
was going to call the provincial commissioner, then his driver and
finally accused 5, the cluster commander.
75.
He heard
accused 1 refer to accused 5 as a “boesman” on the phone.
The witness felt uncomfortable about the disparaging
words that
accused 1 used when speaking about Engelbrecht and the derogatory
word he used on accused 5, hence he stepped outside
the business
premises of accused 1 and waited outside for Vlok. Accused 1 and Vlok
later walked outside and accused 1 showed Vlok
where some trees were
stolen. Accused 1 gave the witness two golf t-shirt but when Vlok saw
the t-shirts, he said that the witness
should take them back but he
felt too embarrassed to do so.
76.
He first
provided Asaram with a handwritten statement which was then typed and
he later signed the typed statement.
77.
He
explained that if a businessman wanted more patrols, that would be
acceded to only if the business is in a hot spot area where
a number
of crimes have been reported.
78.
He couldn’t
explain why his statement wasn’t commissioned.
Warrant
Officer Elsabe Nortje
79.
Stationed
at Goodwood for past 9 years. She became the investigating officer in
the illegal possession of firearm case. She liaised
with the
prosecutor who provided guidance concerning the matter. The suspect
was working in Johannesburg and failed to appear in
court. She asked
the court to issue a warrant for the arrest of the suspect. The
firearm in that case was sent to Ballistics for
testing. The
firearm’s serial number coincided with that of a firearm
belonging to someone who lived in Pretoria. She believed
she couldn’t
charge a suspect if the serial number belonged to a firearm in the
possession of its lawful owner. She discussed
the issue with the
prosecutor and the case was withdrawn. The firearm was sent for
destruction at the request of the wife of the
deceased owner. She
said that she would normally give feedback on the progress of a
docket to the complainant. Accused 1 wasn’t
the complainant and
he wasn’t entitled to receive feedback. Accused 1 didn’t
approach her for feedback nor did the
suspect contact her for
feedback.
80.
She typed a
statement for Captain Dickenson who was her superior.
81.
She
couldn’t understand why accused 1 complained about the
investigation of the case because the outcome was to the advantage
of
the suspect.
82.
She
understood that accused 1 had threatened a civil action and there was
an internal departmental inquiry about the conduct of
the
investigation. She told Asaram that the case was withdrawn because
there was a problem with the serial number. She did so even
before
accused 1 lodged a complaint.
83.
She only
saw accused 6’s statement in the docket when she prepared to
testify in this case.
Warrant Officer Wilson
84.
She was a
detective who attended a robbery crime scene at Fish 4 Africa, a
business in Goodwood. She was busy taking statements,
speaking to the
fingerprint expert and photographer. The interior of the shop had
been cordoned off to enable the police to locate
fingerprints and to
take photos. She heard a commotion and found accused 1 leaning on a
fridge, asking for his fish. He was touching
the fridge and
contaminating the scene. She asked him a few times to leave but it
took a while before he left because he insisted
on being given his
fish order. Accused 1 asked her if she didn’t know who he was
and she said that she didn’t. She
later established who accused
1 was. She was upset with the officers who cordoned off the scene
because they allowed accused 1
to go into the shop.
85.
Much later
she went to accused 1’s business with Warrant Officer Horne.
They were told to attend because it was a complaint
of theft. They
usually didn’t attend the scene when it involved common theft
but they followed orders. She felt uncomfortable
because accused 1
was speaking to them about their boss, Arno, i.e. accused 4 who he
felt he needed to call in their presence.
He purported to discuss a
lunch arrangement and golf with accused 4.
86.
She wrote
out her own statement and signed it but not before a commissioner of
oaths. She doesn’t know how it came to be commissioned.
Brigadier
Anand Pillay
87.
He was
cluster commander of Milnerton cluster in February 2013. On Saturday
15 February 2013 while he was at movies with his son,
his phone rang
and he could see it was the provincial commissioner who is now
accused 4, that called him. When he tried to answer
the call outside,
it had stopped ringing. He assumed that if accused 4 called him, it
had to be urgent. Immediately thereafter
he received a call from
accused 1 who he didn’t know at the time. Accused 1 told him
that he received the witness’
number from accused 4. He said
that his brother’s flat in Century City had been burgled and he
wasn’t satisfied with
the service he was receiving from
Milnerton police. He also said that accused 6 was with him and he was
the station commander of
Cape Town police station and if Milnerton
was not prepared to do the investigation, Cape Town would do it. The
witness responded
that it’s a Milnerton case and he would
contact the duty officer, Colonel Sutherland. He then called
Sutherland and asked
her to go attend the crime scene. The witness
also sent accused 4 a text message informing him that he had sent
Sutherland out
to the scene.  After the movie at approximately
22h00, the witness called accused 1 to find out if he was satisfied
and he
said that Sutherland was there and he was satisfied. Accused 1
wanted to meet the witness and buy him a salomie but the witness

declined the offer as he sensed that accused 1 wanted to become
familiar with him.
88.
A few days
later accused 1 called the witness again and said that he wasn’t
satisfied with the attention that the case was
receiving. Accused 1
said that he went to Century City and obtained the security camera
footage. Accused 1 said that computers
with important work on were
stolen from his brother’s flat and the computers were required
urgently. He said that on the
footage one can see a white golf with a
black fender leaving and on the back seat he could see a flat screen
t.v. Later that vehicle
was found in Gugulethu. Accused 1 said that
there were three brigadiers sitting with him and the witness could
hear voices in the
background. The witness heard the female voice of
accused 7 say: “
Tell
him if he doesn’t  have anyone to do it, I can do it.
”
He recognised her voice because she was station commander of
Tableview at the time and they spoke regularly. The witness
said that
it’s a Milnerton case and they are capable of investigating it.
The witness then called the station commander at
Milnerton, Brigadier
Stander and gave him the information that accused 1 had given the
witness.
89.
Stander
went to the flat but found no video footage. Later accused 1 called
the witness again and said that the white Golf was seen
in Kenilworth
or Mowbray and accused 1 needed the computers urgently. The witness
called Stander again and said that he should
give feedback directly
to accused 1.
90.
On 21
February 2013, accused 1 called the witness and said that he wasn’t
satisfied with the investigation and would like
to meet the witness.
91.
At 14h00 on
21 February 2013, accused 1, with his son Zameer and his brother
Shabir Dawjee, arrived at the witness ‘office
for a meeting.
92.
The witness
had the group commander of detectives, a cluster detective who was a
relative of accused 4 and the investigating officer
all present at
the meeting.
93.
The
officers gave accused 1 feedback and said that the case was receiving
priority and they were doing their utmost to resolve the

investigation. The witness told accused 1 that it’s a Milnerton
case and he doesn’t appreciate other brigadiers from
other
police stations offering to do the investigation. Accused 1 responded
by saying that the witness should not speak like that
about accused 4
who had the right to become involved because they were friends and
accused 1 would die for accused 4. The witness
said that he wasn’t
referring to accused 4 but to other brigadiers.
94.
Accused 1
said that he was going to call the Provincial Commissioner, i.e.
accused 4 and he began dialling. The witness said the
meeting was
concluded and everyone left his office. Accused 1 spoke loudly in the
passage on his phone and said: “
General,
this person is very arrogant and I’m not getting any
assistance.”
He allowed accused 1 back into his office at the request of the
latter’s son. Accused 1 explained that he had known accused
4
for a very long time and that he had done a lot for the police. He
funded or sponsored many projects and awards. Then accused
1 asked
the witness what type of car he drives. The witness said that he
drove a Mercedes Benz. Accused 1 said that he could get
a BMW for the
witness because he has shares in a SMG BMW dealership. Accused 1 said
that he got a BMW X5 for accused 4, a BMW 1
series for General Jaftha
who was deputy Provincial Commissioner, a BMW X 3 for Brigadier
Petersen and Colonel Mathews and a BMW
5 series for accused 6.
Accused 1 then asked the witness if he applied for the cluster
commander position at George because a Major-General’s
position
was advertised there. The witness deliberately told accused 1 that he
didn’t apply while in fact he did. Accused
1 said that the
witness is lying because accused 6 also applied for that position and
he saw the shortlist and the witness wasn’t
on the shortlist.
The witness wanted to know why accused 1 needed the stolen computers
so urgently and accused 1 said that he set
his brother up in a
business that supplies the SAPS with ink cartridges and he needed the
invoices on the computer. The witness
said he wasn’t interested
in accused 1’s offer of a vehicle. After accused 1 left, the
witness spoke to Lt Col Lamoer
and asked him to tell accused 4 that
accused 1 was using his name and it could compromise his position.
95.
A few
months later the witness attended a meeting at the Provincial Command
centre where he met accused 6. He jokingly told accused
6 how could
accused 1 want to buy him a salomie.  That evening the witness
received a call from accused 1 who said that he
had been informed
that the witness accused him of trying to bribe him with a salomie.
The witness replied that he merely joked
about it.
96.
On 19
September 2013 he was again at the Provincial Command centre. The
witness asked accused 6 how his friend, Dawjee was. Accused
6 said
that the witness had formed the wrong impression of accused 1 who did
a lot for the police. Accused 6 also said that on
that day it was
accused 1’s birthday. Accused 6 called accused 1 and said that
the witness wanted to speak to him. The witness
declined and said he
would speak to him some other time.  While driving home that
day, the witness felt bad because accused
6 said accused 1 was a good
person and it was his birthday, so the witness called accused 1 to
wish him happy birthday. Accused
1 said he had a good birthday, there
were brigadiers at his celebration and accused 4 flew down from
Pretoria for his birthday.
Accused 1 said that Indians
shouldn’t fight one another. The witness invited accused 1 for
coffee on condition that the witness
pays.
97.
There was
an event planned by the provincial commissioner in Atlantis and the
witness attended. In the presence of Generals Vearey
and Jacobs,
accused 4 addressed the witness sternly and angrily and he wanted to
know why police member’s private cars were
parking on the
police station’s grounds and why the grass was cut shortly
before he arrived. The witness thought that those
were issues to
address with the station commander. He tried to explain but he didn’t
want to become argumentative with the
provincial commissioner, i.e.
accused 4.
98.
The witness
was cross examined by accused 1’s counsel concerning his role
and responsibility as cluster commander. It was
put to him that if a
complainant such as accused 1’s brother wasn’t satisfied
with the attention the case was receiving,
he could complain to him.
The witness agreed but said that there was a chain of command to
follow. The complaint should first be
made to the station commander
but the complainant bypassed the chain of command and as a result he
asked Colonel Sutherland to
attend the scene herself. In his view,
the case did receive priority because Sutherland, the investigating
officer and the station
commander were involved in the first few days
after the burglary. Usually burglaries do not receive that level of
attention. Fingerprints
were found and a suspect was arrested within
a month of the burglary. The witness believes that despite the
priority given, accused
1 expected greater priority.
99.
The witness
said that he ensured that the case received priority because he
understood that the provincial commissioner had wanted
him to give it
his attention.
100.
He was
questioned about how it is untoward for other brigadiers to have
offered to assist with the investigation when Milnerton
SAPS wasn’t
able to act quickly. The witness said that there were no grounds upon
which to conclude that Milnerton SAPS were
unable to properly
investigate.
101.
The witness
said that accused 1 expected that the stolen computer had to be found
soon after the burglary and he was being unrealistic
because stolen
goods like that are rarely recovered.
102.
When the
witness met Asaram some time later, and she mentioned the problems
she was having with Mr Dawjee, the witness remembered
the problems he
had encountered with Dawjee.
103.
Thereafter
Brigadier Hansraj who works at Crime Intelligence spoke to the
witness about his encounters with accused 1 and told the
witness that
the investigating officer, Colonel Enus would contact him. Colonel
Enus did contact him and he made a statement in
this case.
104.
He drafted
his statement with reference to the itemised billing of his own
cellular phone so that he could have the dates of contact
between him
and accused 1 correct.
105.
He knew
that accused 1‘s telephones were being monitored but he didn’t
know who the other suspects were and if their
phones were monitored.
Evaluation
106.
Since Mrs
Dawjee , Zameer Dawjee and Colonel Izaks didn’t testify, I do
not rely on what they allegedly informed Brigadier
T Hansraj and what
Zameer Dawjee allegedly told Brigadier Pillay. Their names are
however included in the summary of testimony
purely for the purpose
of identifying who were present and in the case of Brigadier Hansraj,
to explain how she came to attend
at accused 1’s  business
premises looking for Nadeem Noor.
107.
The
evidence led by the State sketch a milieu in which accused 1 appeared
to have more knowledge about the internal working of the
SAPS than
most civilians and sought to utilise that knowledge and his
friendship/relationship with the remaining accused to obtain

preferential treatment and in some instances, a more effective and
speedier resolution of his complaints, than the average person.
108.
The
evidence, which is supported by the pleas of guilty on the corruption
counts, also demonstrates the existence of gratifications
given to
accused 4, 5 and 6.
109.
The
relevant accused’s subsequent plea of guilty and section 220
admissions are as follows:
110.
In
respect of accused 1 to 3:
PLEAS OF GUILTY IN
TERMS OF SECTION 112(2) AND ADMISSIONS IN TERMS OF SECTION 220 OF THE
CPA
“
I
change my plea from not guilty to guilty and those of Accused 2 and 3
on the following counts in terms of section 112(2) and make
the
following admissions in terms of section 220 of the CPA:
Count
3:
13.
I
met Arno Lamoer (Accused 4), 25 years ago whilst working in Manenberg
as a petrol attendant.  He was a constable at Manenberg
Police
Station.  Over the years we have remained firm friends as have
our wives until Arno Lamoer’s wife passed away.
We
holidayed and socialized together.  His children and mine grew
up together and my and his children treated our separate
homes as
their own whilst growing up.
14.
During
the period 2011 to 2013 Arno Lamoer ran into financial difficulties.
I, through the services of and with the assistance
of Accused 2 and
3, helped him financially. He was then a Lieutenant-General in the SA
Police.  I gave R20 000,00 to
his daughter on her marriage
in 2011, to him R7 000,00 in February 2012, R15 000,00 in
December 2012, R2 000,00
in January 2013 and R10 000,00 in
August 2013.  In April 2012 I gave him R3 180,00 towards
his holiday accommodation
on the Garden Route and in July 2013
R10 149,50 towards him hiring a vehicle.  I gave Arno
Lamoer and his family in total
over the period from December 2011 to
August 2013 R67 329,50.  When Arno Lamoer received his
pension he repaid this amount
in full.
15.
I
accordingly admit that on 8 occasions during the period 3 December
2011 and 19 August 2013,
and
at or near the
districts of Goodwood, Cape Town, and/or Bellville.  I gave
Accused 4, a public officer and his family, monies totaling
R67 329,50.
My main intent was to help a very close
friend.
16.
I
admit however that at the time of the payments I foresaw as a
possibility, and reconciled myself with that fact, that such payment

could cause Accused 4 to give me preferential treatment when carrying
out or exercising his powers, duties or functions as a police
officer
should I ever in the future approach him for assistance concerning
police matters, conduct that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i)
to (iv) of
PRECCA.  My actions in making the aforesaid payments were
accordingly wrongful and unlawful.
17.
Accused
4 did in fact directly assist or favour me in one instance in
November 2013 by giving me a letter setting out my good standing
with
the SAPS.
Count
4:
18.
I
met Darius van der Ross through my sponsorship of various police
activities in the Northern Suburbs.  He was a Brigadier
in the
SA Police.  I and Accused 2 and 3 sponsored for example a Thula
Thula room at Bellville Police Station for victims
of crime, police
fundraising events, numerous sporting events and sponsored prizes or
awards that recognized outstanding police
work.  As the evidence
has shown I was a businessman that the police could rely on when they
were in need of donations for
police work.
19.
Darius
van der Ross and I became house friends over the years as we shared
numerous interests, mostly policing.
20.
Over
a period from 30 April 2012 to 15 July 2013 I allowed Darius van der
Ross to use the businesses’ petrol account on 5
instances where
he bought petrol amounting to R3 324,60.  Towbars Cape CC
in April 2012 also sponsored his costs associated
with a police golf
event in an amount of R4 000,00.  That sponsorship was
declared and made known to the SA Police.
21.
I
accordingly admit that on these 6 occasions during the period 30
April 2012 and 15 July 2013,
and
at or near the
districts of Goodwood, Cape Town, and/or Bellville, I and Accused 2
and 3 wrongfully and unlawfully gave Accused 5 gifts totaling
R 7
324.60.  Our main intent was to help a very close friend of
mine.
22.
I
admit however that at the time of the payments I foresaw as a
possibility, and reconciled myself with that fact, that such payments

could cause Accused 5 to give us preferential treatment when carrying
out or exercising his powers, duties or functions as a police
officer
should I ever in the future approach him for assistance concerning
police matters, conduct that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i)
to (iv) of
PRECCA.  Our actions in making the aforesaid payments were
accordingly wrongful and unlawful.
23.
I
have read and confirm what is said by Accused 5 in his s.112 plea in
paragraphs 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 and confirm and admit that Accused
5 did
give me the assistance he described therein.
Count
5:
24.
Colin
Govender and I are cousins.  I have known him most of my life.
After he, his wife, Sharon, and children moved to
Cape Town our
families became very close.   Whenever either my wife and I
or they go away, for example, then the parents
staying in Cape Town
look after all the children.
25.
We
go on holidays together and are the closest of house friends.
26.
Over
the period November 2011 to October 2013 I and Accused 2 and 3 gifted
Colin R24 601,44 made up as follows:
26.1
I paid for the families
pool maintenance (R5 770,00);
26.2
For vehicle rental
(R14 554,97);
26.3
Petrol expenses
(R726,47);  and
26.4
Two flight tickets
(R3 543,00).
27.
I
accordingly admit that during the period November 2011 to October
2013
,
on at or near Goodwood, I and Accused 2 and 3 gave Accused 6, a
public officer R24 601,44 as described above and on the dates

there mentioned
for his, and/or for the benefit of his family.  Our main intent
was to help a very close friend of mine and his family.
28.
I
admit however that at the time of the payments I foresaw as a
possibility, and reconciled myself with that fact, that such payment

could cause Accused 6 to give me and Accused 2 and 3 preferential
treatment when carrying out or exercising his powers, duties
or
functions as a police officer should we ever in the future approach
him for assistance concerning police matters, conduct that
is
proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i) to (iv) of PRECCA.  Our actions in
making the aforesaid payments were accordingly wrongful and
unlawful.
29.
I
have read and confirm what is said by Accused 6 in his s.112 plea in
paragraph 9.1 to and including 9.8 and confirm and admit
that Accused
6 did give us the assistance he describes therein.
COUNT
12
:
I.r.o.
Accused 1
30.
In
February 2013 I offered to assist Brigadier Pillay, should he ever
wish to obtain a BMW motor vehicle, by getting him preferential

treatment at a BMW franchise in exchange for him assisting me and my
brother in getting the police to do their duty expeditiously
in
investigating a break in at my brother’s flat and in recovering
the stolen property.  Such offered assistance involved
me going
to talk to a friend of mine at SMG Motors (who sold BMW vehicles) to
ask that preferential treatment be accorded to Brigadier
Pillay
should he want to purchase a BMW.
31.
I
admit accordingly that at the time I offered to assist should he want
to purchase a BMW I foresaw as a possibility and reconciled
myself to
that fact that such offer could cause Brigadier Pillay to assist in
getting police officers under his control to do their
duty
expeditiously and thereby granting me preferential treatment, conduct
that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i) to (iv) of PRECCA
and is wrongful
and unlawful.
32.
My
actions in offering to assist Brigadier Pillay regarding the BMW were
accordingly wrongful and unlawful.
COUNT
13
:
I.r.o.
Accused 1
33.
On a
date in October 2013 I spoke to a Police Colonel Hiranwanlal about a
VW Polo belonging to me that was in a police pound in
Durban.  I
wanted my vehicle back.  The Colonel had been told by Brigadier
Colin Govender before speaking to me that
the return of the vehicle
to me was above board.  The Colonel nevertheless refused to
assist in the return of my vehicle.
I impressed on him that I
was a friend of the police and had sponsored numerous police events
and intended to do the same in future.
The Colonel swore at me,
ending our conversation.
34.
I
admit accordingly that when I told Colonel Hiranwanlal that I was a
friend of the police and had sponsored numerous police events
and
intended to do the same in future I foresaw as a possibility and
reconciled myself to that fact that such a statement could
cause
Colonel Hiranwanlal to assist me in getting my vehicle released from
the pound, conduct that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i)
to (iv) of
PRECCA.
35.
My
actions in offering future sponsorships to SAPS to Colonel
Hiranwanwal were accordingly wrongful and unlawful.
COUNT
14
:
I.r.o.
Accused 1
36.
On
14 October 2013 I gave General Matakata R1 000,00 in cash.
General Matakata was known to my wife.  When General
Matakata
visited me I gave her the money as my wife had asked me to give her a
gift of chocolates.  My intention was to buy
her those
chocolates but had never gotten around to doing so.  At the time
that I gave her the money I told General Matakata
that the money was
from my wife.
37.
I
admit however that at the time of the payments I foresaw as a
possibility, and reconciled myself with that fact, that such payment

could cause General Matakata to give me preferential treatment when
carrying out or exercising her powers, duties or functions
as a
police officer, either in connection with my complaints to her at our
meeting about the investigation in the present case,
or  should
I ever in the future approach her for assistance concerning police
matters, conduct that is proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i)
to (iv) of
PRECCA.  My actions in making the aforesaid payments were
accordingly wrongful and unlawful.
COUNT
15
:
I.r.o
Accused 1
38.
Lieutenant
General Thulani Ntobela, a police officer stationed in Mpumulanga,
had asked Colin Govender about obtaining tickets to
attend a jazz
festival in Cape Town in late 2013.  Colin Govender asked me if
I had spare tickets to the festival.  I
did have spare tickets.
I phoned General Ntobela whom I had met through Colin and said he
could have the spare tickets in
exchange for transport when and if I
went to Mpumulanga.  I sent him the spare tickets.
39.
I
admit however that at the time of giving of the tickets I foresaw as
a possibility, and reconciled myself with that fact, that
such
payment could cause General Ntombela to give me preferential
treatment when carrying out or exercising his powers, duties
or
functions as a police officer should I ever in the future approach
him for assistance concerning police matters, conduct that
is
proscribed by s.4(1)(b)(i) to (iv) of PRECCA.  My actions in
making the aforesaid payments were accordingly wrongful and
unlawful.
COUNT 16
:
I.r.o
Accused 1; 2 and 3
40.
I
was the sole member of Towbars Cape CC (accused 2), Towbars King CC
(accused 3) and Shine the Way 307 CC.  All three CC’s
fit
towbars.  On 9 October 2013 I was approached by Warrant
Officer Pieterse to quote on supplying and fitting a towbar
to a
police vehicle.  He requested me to supply three quotes.
41.
I in
turn requested my employees in the three CC’s to supply quotes
on supplying and fitting a towbar.  They did.
I failed to
disclose that I was the sole member of the three CC’s to
Pieterse or the SAPS.  The names of the three managers
of the
three CC’s appeared on the quotes.
42.
The
work was never carried out.  Unbeknown to me Pieterse had been
sent to trap me into giving him the three quotes he requested.
43.
I
accordingly
admit
that on the abovementioned date and place and at or near Goodwood, in
the district of Goodwood I wrongfully, unlawfully and
intentionally
defrauded Pieterse and/or the SA Police Service, by failing to
disclose to Pieterse or SAPS that I was the sole member
of the
entities that quoted for the work to be done and accordingly were not
independent quotations.  The quoted prices however
were not
inflated and did represent market related prices for the work to be
carried out.
COUNT
25:
DEFEATING
OR OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
I.r.o
Accused 1
44.
I admit that on or about
02.05.2012 and at or near Goodwood, in the District of Goodwood, I
wrongfully, unlawfully and with the
intention to defeat or obstruct
the course of justice, caused a letter to be drafted in the name of
an employee in the employ of
Accused 2, namely Lindy-Lou Loock
stating that she was not aware of any funds paid to Accused 4.
45.
When
I caused the letter to be drafted and placed into the personal files
of Lindy-Lou Loock I knew that such letter did not reflect
the truth
as I knew she was aware of me paying amounts that set out in items 1
– 4 of schedule 1 to the indictment to Accused
4 as such
financial transactions were done with her knowledge as bookkeeper.
46.
Such
letter was compiled because I was at loggerheads with Colonel Asaram
and possibly would need the letter to counter her allegations
that my
relationship with Accused 4 was somehow corrupt.  I admit that I
thereby attempted to defeat or obstruct the course
of justice having
such a letter drafted and placed in Ms Loock’s personal file.
I
never used the letter in any way and the letter at all relevant times
remained in the personal file of Mrs Loock.
COUNT
26:
FRAUD
I.r.o
Accused 1
47.
During
the course of 2011 I was approached by Andre Petersen, a relative by
way of his marriage to a family member, Zaida Karriem,
and who was
previously employed by me as a manager at Towbars King, for
assistance in purchasing a vehicle for him as he did not
qualify for
bank finance.
48.
He
contacted me and asked me to buy the car in my name and to finance
the car in my name and that he would pay me the installments
I had to
pay to Alphera Financial Services to pay for the car. The underlying
agreement between myself and Mr Petersen was that
when the last
installment was paid I would transfer ownership of the vehicle to
him. The installments that Mr Petersen would pay
me amounted to R 3
000.00, which instalment included insurance on the vehicle.
49.
Mr
Petersen resided in Durban with Zaida Karriem.  Mr Petersen took
the Polo during May 2011 to Durban.
50.
During
the early part of 2012, Mr Petersen stopped making payments to me.
I contacted him and demanded the return of the vehicle
as he was no
longer making the payments as agreed.  I also withdrew my
permission for him to use the Polo.  I also informed
Zaida
Karriem of the withdrawal of my permission for Petersen to use the
vehicle and that he should return the Polo.
51.
I
continued to pay the instalments due to Alphera Financial Services as
set out in the instalment sale agreement.
52.
By
August 2013, Mr Petersen had still not returned the Polo to me.
I approached Accused 5 for assistance and requested that
the matter
be investigated so that the Polo can be returned.  On or about
15 August 2013 I signed an affidavit drawn up by
Warrant Officer
McGregor that set out the above facts.  The affidavit is
attached hereto marked “MSD1”.
A docket was opened
on the charge of “use of vehicle without owner’s
consent.”
53.
I
was later informed by the investigating officer that he had taken the
docket to the Regional Prosecutor who had then converted
the charge
to theft.
54.
After
some investigation by the SAPS, the vehicle was eventually traced and
recovered in Durban in the possession of Mr Petersen.
The
vehicle was eventually returned to me after I had withdrawn the
charge of theft against Mr Petersen.
55.
I
admit that I failed to comply with certain sub-clauses of the
instalment sale agreement with Alphera Financial Services as set
out
on page 59 of the indictment being:
55.1
The
Polo was to be kept in my possession or under my control at all
times;
55.2
If
the Polo became lost or stolen I was obliged to immediately inform
Alphera in writing thereof;
55.3
I
was obliged to inform Alphera in writing of any change concerning;
·
the
address of the premises in which the Polo was ordinarily kept;
·
the name
and address of any other person to whom possession of the Polo had
been transferred.
56.
I
did not and had no intention of keeping the vehicle in my possession
or under my control when I signed the agreement.  I
did not
inform Alphera in writing of the address where the Polo was
ordinarily kept nor did I in writing tell them of the transfer
of
possession to Mr Petersen.
57.
I
however did honor my payment obligations to Alphera Financial
Services, and paid all amounts owing to them even though Petersen

stopped paying me.  This company has never complained of any
wrong doing on my part.  I have fully paid for the car.
58.
I
accordingly admit that on or about 27.05.2011 and at or near
Goodwood, in the district of Goodwood, I wrongfully, unlawfully and

with the intent to defraud, falsely and to the potential prejudice of
Alphera Financial Services, failed to inform them of the
underlying
agreement I had with Petersen and that Petersen was to take
possession of and use the vehicle and store the vehicle
away from me.
COUNT
27:
DEFEATING
OR OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
I.r.o
Accused 1
59.
Mr
Petersen resided in Durban with Zaida Karriem. Mr Petesen took the
Polo mentioned above during May 2011 to Durban.
60.
During
the early part of 2012, Mr Petersen stopped making payments to me. I
contacted him and demanded the return of the vehicle
as he was no
longer making the payments as agreed. I also withdrew my permission
for him to use the Polo. I also informed Zaida
Karriem of the
withdrawal of my permission for Petersen to use the vehicle and that
he should return the Polo.
61.
I
continued to pay the instalments due to Alphera Financial Services as
set out in the instalment sale agreement as also the insurance

amounts.
62.
By
August 2013, Mr Petersen had still not returned the polo to me. I
approached Accused 5 for assistance and advice and told him
what is
set out above.
I
made use of him firstly because I was not able to read and write
fluently and secondly because he was far better equipped to explain

my predicament.
He
in turn relayed the information to Warrant Officer Bronwyn McGregor a
police officer who then drew up my statement for
me.  I signed
it.  The facts contained in such affidavit are all true and
correct.  The affidavit is attached here
to marked “MSD1”.
A docket was opened on the charge of “use of vehicle without
owners consent”.
63.
I
was later informed by the investigating officer that he had taken the
docket to the Regional Prosecutor who had then converted
the charge
to theft.  I had no input and played no role in such a decision.
64.
After
some investigation by the SAPS, the vehicle was eventually traced and
recovered in Durban in the possession of Mr Petersen.
The
vehicle was eventually returned to me after I had withdrawn the
charge of theft against Mr Petersen.
65.
I
failed to accurately describe the true circumstances of the alleged
offence of driving a motor vehicle without the owner’s
consent
in that my statement says:
“
The
suspect however fail (sic) to return the vehicle.  He
disappeared with the vehicle is (sic) now allegedly somewhere in
the
Durban area.”
The
affidavit (“MSD1”) did not reveal the following details:
65.1
I
intended to transfer ownership of the vehicle to Petersen when the
vehicle was paid for;
65.2
Petersen
took possession of the vehicle for his personal use in Durban with my
consent prior to me rescinding my consent;
66.
The
Affidavit was misleading in that it failed to indicate that Petersen
was allegedly using the vehicle without my consent in Durban
and not
the Western Cape, meaning that any crime was committed in Durban, to
be investigated by Durban SAPS and not the Western
Cape and its SAPS
members. A Durban investigation would have deprived me of being able
to call upon the assistance of Accused 5.
67.
Accordingly,
I plead guilty to
Defeating
or Obstructing the Course of Justice. “
111.
In
respect of accused 4:
Plea
of guilty in terms of section 112(2) and admissions in terms of
section 220 of the CPA:
“
15.
I changed my plea from not guilty to guilty on the following count in
terms of section
112(2) and makes the following admissions in terms
of section 220 of the CPA:
Count
7:
Corruption
in contravention of section 4(1)(a) read with
sections 1
,
2
,
4
(2),
21
,
24
,
25
and
26
of the
Prevention and Combating of Corrupt
Activities Act, 12 of 2004
- Corrupt activities relating to
public officers  (Accepting or agreeing or offering to accept a
gratification)
I
admit that:
During
the period December 2011 to September 2013, on the dates mentioned in
Column 2 of Schedule 1 and at or near the places mentioned
in Column
4 of Schedule 1, in the districts of Goodwood and/or The Cape, I,
being a public officer as described in the Preamble,
wrongfully and
unlawfully agreed to accept and/or accepted from Accused 1 to 3 the
gratifications  (in the form of loans)
described in the Preamble
and mentioned in Schedule 1, for my benefit and/or for the benefit of
any other person, in order to act
personally or by influencing
another person so to act, in a manner prescribed in
section 4(1)(i)
to (iv) of PRECCAA  (as described in the Preamble).
16.
I further wish to state that no favours were done for acc 1 to 3 up
and until 17 November 2013 (sworn affidavit
of investigating officer
dated 30 September 2013 refers).
17.
I accordingly admit that I wrongfully, unlawfully and intentionally
gave a letter of good standing to accused
no 1 for the benefit of
accused 1 to 3 in a manner as prescribed in
section 4(1)(i)
to (iv)
of PRECCAA  (as prescribed in the PREAMBLE).  I admit that
my intention to commit the crime was dolus eventualis
as when I gave
the aforesaid letter of good standing I foresaw as a possibility that
such letter would play a role in what is prescribe
in the PREAMBLE.”
112.
In
respect of accused 5:
PLEAS OF GUILTY IN
TERMS OF SECTION 112(2) AND ADMISSIONS IN TERMS OF SECTION 220 OF THE
CPA
“
8.1
I change
my plea from not guilty to guilty on the following counts in terms of
section 112(2)
and make the following admissions in terms of
section
220
of the CPA:
Count
8:
CORRUPTION
in
contravention of
section
4(1)(b)
read
with sections 1, 2, 4(2), 21, 25 and 26
of
the
Prevention
and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 12 of 2004 (“PRECCAA”)
– Corrupt activities relating to public
officers (offering or
giving a gratification).
8.1.
Over
a period from 11 May 2013 up to and including 15 July 2013 I, with
the permission of Accused 1, used the petrol account of
Accused 2
and/or Accused 3 on 5 instances to the value of R3 324,60. I
filled my personal vehicle with petrol to the value
mentioned above.
Accused 1 also sponsored me for a police golf event in the amount of
R4 000,00 in April 2012.  That
sponsorship was declared and
made known to the SA Police in the prescribed manner.
8.
2.
I accordingly admit that on 5 occasions during the period 11 May 2013
up to and including
15 July 2013,
at
or near the places mentioned at numbers 2 to 6 in Column 4 of
Schedule
2
,
in
the districts of Goodwood and/or The Cape, I, being a public officer
as described in the Preamble, wrongfully, unlawfully and
with dolus
eventualis agreed to accept and/or accepted from Accused 1 to 3 the
gratifications mentioned above and described in
the Preamble
(excluding the R4000.00 golf sponsorship) for my benefit.
8.
3.
I admit that my intention to commit this crime was dolus eventualis
as when I accepted
the aforesaid gratifications I foresaw the
possibility that such gratifications would induce me in the execution
of my duties to
act, personally or by influencing another so to act
in a manner that amounts to improper preferential treatment of
Accused 1, 2
or 3. Despite forseeing this possibility, I still
accepted the gratifications.
9.
Accordingly
I admit the following interventions by me, which amounted to improper
preferential treatment in favour of  Accused
1:
9.1.
In
and during August 2013, Accused 1 called me from Parow Arms. He
indicated that he needed certain documents to be certified. He
said
he needed me to assist him. I immediately contacted Lt. Williams and
told him to go to Parow Arms to assist Accused 1, which
he did.
9.2.
In
and during August 2013 I assisted Accused 1 in opening a case for use
of a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent. Accused
1
informed me that the vehicle was in Durban. I personally took his
statement and gave instructions to my officers to expedite
the
investigation. I gave this matter my personal attention and
improperly prioritised its investigation.
9.3.
During
the period from May 2013 onwards, Accused 1 approached me for police
assistance and/or to complain about police service delivery.
When he
did so, I would give him improper preferential treatment personally
or by directing others to do so.”
113.
In
respect of accused 6:
PLEAS OF GUILTY IN
TERMS OF SECTION 112(2)
“
7
.
I plea guilty to the following counts in terms of section 112(2) and
make the following admissions in
terms of section 220 of the CPA:
COUNT
9:
CORRUPTION
in
contravention of
section
4(1)(a)
read
with sections 1, 2, 4(2), 21, 24, 25 and 26
of
the
Prevention
and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 12 of 2004
– Corrupt
activities relating to public officers (Accepting gratifications).
During
the period November 2011 to October 2013
,
on the dates mentioned in Column 2 of
Schedule
3
and at or near the places mentioned in Column 4 of
Schedule
3
,
in
the district of Goodwood,
Accused
6
,
being a public officer as described in the Preamble, wrongfully,
unlawfully and with dolus eventualis accepted from Accused 1
to 3 the
gratifications described in the Preamble and mentioned in Column 3 of
Schedule
3
(excluding item 14 of Column 3  of
Schedule
3
)
for the benefit of Accused 6 :
Mohamed
Saleem Dawjee (Accused 1) and I are cousins. I have known him most of
my life. Our families are supporting each other when
the need arises
from time to time with loans and business arrangements. We go on
holidays together and are the closest of house
friends. Over the
period November 2011 to October 2013 I received the following
gratifications in the amount of R 24 601,44
from Accused 1, 2
and 3:
7.1
Payment of pool
maintenance (R5 770,00);
7.2
For vehicle rental
(R14 554,97);
7.3
Petrol expenses
(R726,47);
7.4
Two flight tickets
(R3 543,00).
8.
I
admit that my intention to commit this crime was dolus eventualis as
when I accepted the aforesaid gratifications I foresaw the

possibility that such gratifications would induce me in the execution
of my duties to act, personally or by influencing another
so to act
in a manner that amounts to improper preferential treatment of
Accused 1, 2 or 3. Despite forseeing this possibility,
I still
accepted the gratifications.
9.
Accordingly,
and with the above mentioned personal acts and influences by me, I
admit to the following interventions referred to
in
Schedule
6
of the indictment :
9.1
During
February 2013 I was willing to go to an address in Gugulethu after
hours to check on a vehicle which was used in a burglary
of at the
house of Accused 1’s brother in the event that the Cluster
Commander of Milnerton, Brigadier Pillay, had not have
anybody
available to do so. (
Item
17
).
9.2
During
February 2013 I introduced W/O Knoetzen to Accused 1 in my office to
assist Accused 1’s daughter with an appeal in
respect of her
fire-arm license application. (
Item
25
).
9.3
Lieutenant
General Ntombela, a police officer stationed in Mpumulanga, asked me
about obtaining tickets to attend a jazz festival
in Cape Town in
late 2013. I asked Accused 1 if he had spare tickets. Accused 1 then
contacted General Ntombela and gave his spare
tickets to General
Ntombela directly. (
Item
12
).
9.4
During
July 2013 I introduced Captain Hendricks to Accused 1 to assist him
with an application to temporarily possess a fire-arm
in terms of a
regulation 86(4)
form. (
Item
26
).
9.5
During
July 2013 I requested Constable de Jager to hand over a Norinco
pistol to Accused 1 in terms of the
regulation 86(4)
form. (
Item
32 & 34
).
9.6
During
July 2013 I arranged an appointment for Mr Ross with the designated
police officer, Captain Hendriks, to assist Ross with
the application
for a fire-arm license. Ross accordingly attended at the Cape Town
police station and Hendricks assisted him with
the motivation of the
application. (
Item
36
).
9.7
During
August 2013 Accused 1 enquired from me to make printouts of his and
his wife’s fire-arm registrations to see whether
he would
qualify for another firearm. I then asked W/O Knoetzen to make the
printouts. (
Item
43
).
9.8
During
October 2013 I called detective commander at the SAPS Phoenix to
assist Accused 1 with the clearance and handover of the
Polo vehicle
which was recovered (and not stolen) as per the docket. (
Item
64 & 65
).”
114.
In
respect of accused 7:
In
her plea of not guilty to Count 10, accused 7 provides the following
explanation:
1.
Ms
Govender denies that she
received
,
accepted, agreed or offered to accept any gratification from Accused
1, 2 or 3 either for the benefit of herself or for the benefit
of
another person.
2.
Ms
Govender denies that any gratification was accepted by her in order
to act in a manner that amounts to illegal, dishonest, unauthorised

exercise, carrying out or performance of any powers, duties or
functions arising out of her legal obligations as a public officer

and more specifically that she received gratifications corruptly in
furtherance of the private, personal or business interests
of Accused
1 to 3.
3.
Ms
Govender denies that she accepted or received any gratification that
amounts to the abuse of her position of authority, a breach
of trust
or in violation of her legal duties as a public officer or to
influence her to use her office or position to advance the
interests
of Accused 1 to 3.
4.
Ms
Govender denies that she received any gratification in order to act
in a manner designed to achieve an unjustified result.
5.
Ms
Govender denies that she attempted, conspired, aided, abetted,
induced, incited, instigated, instructed, commanded or counselled
any
other person to commit an offence as listed in the
Prevention and
Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.
6.
>
Ms
Govender engaged with Accused 1, a family member, in his personal
capacity in legitimate and lawful contractual transactions
as set out
below.
7.
Ms
Govender did not enter into any unlawful or illegal transactions with
Accused 1, 2 or 3.
8.
Ms
Govender had no mens rea to engage in any illegal or unlawful
transactions with Accused 1, 2 or 3.
9.
Ms
Govender denies that she received gratifications from Accused 1 to 3
in furtherance of an ongoing scheme with a common purpose.
10.
Ms
Govender denies that she:
10.1
offered
or displayed any favours in work-related activities to Accused 1, 2
or 3;  or
10.2
influenced
another Police employee to do or not to do any favours for Accused 1,
2 or 3;  or
10.3
engaged
in any transaction or action with Accused 1 – 3 that was in
conflict with or infringed on the execution of her official
duties;
or
10.4
acceded
to any demands by Accused 1 or that she was required by Accused 1 to
use her official position and influence at all.
11.
The
items listed in Schedule 4 were justified transactions pursuant to
mutually accepted contractual obligations between adult and

authorised parties to wit Accused 1 and 6 and Ms Govender.
12.
Item
1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 refer to pool maintenance at the residence of Ms and
Mr Govender  (Accused 6) which was paid from the
account of
Accused 2 in a total amount of R5 777…
13.
The
pool maintenance service was rendered by a company (Pool People) in
terms of a contract between Accused 1 and the Pool People
which
maintenance was provided to five different properties
(including the pool of Ms Govender and her husband  -

Accused 6) paid for by Accused 2.  The underlying agreement
between Accused 1 and Accused 6 was that Accused 6 will reimburse

Accused 1 on a monthly basis.
14.
Accused
1 was reimbursed on a monthly basis for all the above payments.
15.
Ms
Govender denies that the pool maintenance was a gratification or a
gift or a registerable interest as contemplated in the Financial

Disclosure Framework applicable to senior public officers.
16.
The
pool maintenance contract made legitimate business sense.
Cash
Deposits
:
17.
Items
5; 7; 8 and 10 refer to cash deposits into the Nedbank account of Ms
Govender from the account of Accused 1 in the total amount
of
R21 000,00.
These
amounts were instalments for the sale of a Toyota Tazz from Accused 6
to Accused 1 in the amount of R30 000,00 during
January 2013.
18.
Ms
Govender denies that any cheques drawn on the bank accounts of
Accused 1, 2 or 3 was paid into her bank account.
BMW
320i
:
19.
Item
9 refers to a BMW 320i with a contract value of R490 919,00
which vehicle was registered on 2 January 2013 in the name
of Ms
Govender.  Accused 1 executed a suretyship and acted as
co-debtor pertaining to the financing of the BMW 320i.
Accused
1 also authorised BMW Financial Services to debit his account in
respect of obligations arising from the finance agreement.
20.
The
explanation of Ms Govender is that Accused 6 wanted to buy the BMW
320i during November 2012.  The requirement of BMW Financial

Services in their standardised application forms was to submit
details of a co-debtor and that of a surety.  Accused 1 forms

part of the SMG Fleet Portfolio and has access to a facility
allocated to him by BMW South Africa.  Accused 1 introduced
various members of Police senior management to SMG and all those
transactions were also facilitated by Accused 1.  Accused
1
acted on that basis as co-debtor and surety for the BMW 320i and in
that capacity signed an authority for BMW Financial Services
to use
his account as co-debtor and to act as surety for Ms Govender.
21.
The
BMW 320i was registered in the name of Ms Govender but was
exclusively used and driven by Accused 6.
22.
The
first four payments were debited against Accused 1’s account in
the amount of R7,983.38 on the first day of January, February,
March
and April 2013 which payments were reimbursed to Accused 1 from the
Nedbank account of Ms Govender.
23.
The
sale agreement between BMW Financial Services and Ms Govender with
Accused 1 as co-debtor and/or surety was a lawful agreement
and not a
concealed or undisclosed transaction.
BMW
520D
:
24.
A
BMW 520D with a contract value of R669 001,65 was registered in
the name of Ms Govender on 22 March 2013.
25.
The
explanation by Ms Govender is that Accused 6 who used the BMW 320i
traded it is on a second-hand BMW 520D.  Similar requirements
by
BMW Financial Services applied regarding a co-debtor and a surety.
Accused 1 again facilitated the transaction and acted
as co-debtor
and executed a suretyship.
26.
The
instalments which were debited against Accused 1’s account by
BMW Financial Services in monthly amounts of R10 951,53
were in
close proximity reimbursed from Ms Govender’s Nedbank account
to Accused 1’s FNB account.
27.
Ms
Govender paid the rest of the instalments from April 2014 directly
into the bank account of BMW Financial Services and still
to date
pays the instalments although the vehicle has been used from April
2013 to date by Accused 6.
28.
Ms
Govender therefore denies that Items 9 and 11 are correct inasmuch
that it states that an amount of R490 919,00 was debited
to her
account on 2 January 2013 and that an amount of R669 001,66 was
debited to her account on 2 April 2013.
29.
The
BMW 320i and the BMW 520D sale agreements between Ms Govender, BMW
Financial Services and the suretyships by Accused 1 for both
vehicles
made legitimate business sense between family members.
Petrol
:
30.
…
31.
The
explanation of Ms Govender is that the petrol payments in respect of
Items 13, 14 and 15, were for the BMW 520D driven and used

exclusively by Accused 6 and the petrol slips were signed for by
Accused 6.  The petrol payments in Item 16, 19 and 20 were
for
the Renault Clio which was driven and used exclusively by Kirshia
Govender and the petrol slips were signed for by Kirshia.
32.
Ms
Govender therefore denies that the petrol items in Schedule 4 were
gratifications received or accepted or agreed to be accepted
by
her
.
She never purchased petrol on Accused 2’s petrol account.
33.
Ms
Govender further denies that she directly or indirectly accepted the
petrol payments for the benefit of Accused 6 or Kirshia
as she had no
knowledge of the transactions or that she ought to have known about
the existence of such transactions.  Accused
6 used the BMW 520D
for work purposes and Kirshia used the Renault Clio exclusively for
transport while she was a student.
Vehicle
Rent Paid
:
34.
Item
12 refers to the rental of a Nissan by P Govender at the value of
R955,50 and paid for by Accused 2.
35.
Ms
Govender denies that she received, accepted or agreed to accept a
gratification relating to the rental of a Nissan by P Govender
for
the account of Accused 2.
36.
Ms
Govender denies any knowledge of the rental or that she ought to have
known about it.
37.
Ms
Govender denies that any cars were rented by her for the account of
Accused 1, 2 or 3.
Mango
Flights
:
38.
Item
18 of Schedule 4 refers to a payment made by Accused 2 for a Mango
return flight ticket in the amount of R2 218,00.
39.
Ms
Govender denies that she was a passenger on those particular flights
and/or that the flights were booked for her and/or that
a flight
ticket was purchased for her by either Accused 1, 2 or 3 at any
stage.  It appears from the transaction details that
the flights
were booked for Kirshia Govender by Accused 1 and paid for from his
credit card account.
40.
Ms
Govender denies that she received, accepted or agreed to accept the
flight tickets as a gratification for the benefit of Kirshia

Govender.
Renault
Clio
:
41.
Item
17 refers to the sale of a Renault Clio with registration number
KIRSH WP in the amount of R167 400,20.  Accused
1 is
reflected as the person responsible for the purchase of this car as
his identity number is reflected in Item 17.  Ms
Govender was
advised that Accused 1 applied to Alphera Finances for the financing
of the purchase.
42.
Accused
1 facilitated the purchase of the Renault Clio with the assistance of
Alphera Finances and the Renault was registered in
the name of
Accused 1.  Kirshia used the car.  Ms Govender paid
instalments from a Nedbank account into the FNB account
of accused 1.
On
3 February 2014 Accused 6 paid the outstanding balance of R163,217.38
to Alphera Finance.
43.
Ms
Govender denies that the purchase of the Renault Clio was received,
accepted or agreed to be accepted as a gratification by her
for the
benefit of Kirshia.
44.
Paragraph
119 in the indictment refers to assistance by Ms Govender to Accused
1 to gain possession of a Volkswagen Polo motorcar
in Durban from
Petersen and that she intervened placing SAPS resources at the
disposal of Accused 1.  This is false and consequently
denied.
C.
COUNTS 28 – 109:
EXPLANATION:
1.
Ms
Govender denies that she knew or ought reasonably to have known that
any property or part thereof or any service, advantage,
benefit or
reward was allegedly derived, received or retained in connection with
or as a result of any alleged unlawful activity
carried on by either
Accused 1, 2 or 3.
2.
Ms
Govender denies any knowledge of unlawful activities carried on by
Accused 1, 2 or 3 and/or whether any proceeds of such allegedly

unlawful activities were property used in any agreement, arrangement
or transaction listed in Schedule 4.
3.
Ms
Govender denies that she performed any act with such property to the
effect that or to have the effect of concealing, disguising
the
nature, source, location, disposition or movement of the said
property for the following reasons:
3.1
She
did not know or ought to have known that the source of the property
used to pay for the pool maintenance, the petrol, the renting
of
cars, the flight tickets and the cash deposits into her bank account
were alleged proceeds of criminal activities.
3.2
She
did not conceal or disguise or disposed the movement of the said
property  -  it was clearly reflected in bank statements,

petrol slips the rental agreement and on the flight booking and was
not received, issued to or signed by Ms Govender.
3.3
The
BMW 320i and BMW 520D purchases were transparent and well documented
transactions, the source of which was BMW Financial Services.
3.4
The
transactions in Schedule 4 were not declared in terms of the
Financial Disclosure Framework simply because it was not registrable

interests or gifts.
3.5
The
transactions were not material advantages that were not available to
the general public.
4.
Ms
Govender denies that she acted unlawfully or with mens rea regarding
the alleged unlawful activities of Accused 1, 2 or 3 and/or
regarding
the proceeds of any such alleged unlawful activities.
5.
Ms
Govender admits that on or about 4 October 2013, that Accused 4
(the Provincial Commissioner) called her about a complaint
of Accused
1 and instructed her to enquire about the complaint.  Ms
Govender admits that she instructed one Colonel Anthony
to attend to
the complaint as a result of Accused 4’s call to her.
115.
In view of
the State failing to adduce evidence to disprove accused 7’s
plea explanation that:
·
The BMW
motor vehicles were acquired for accused 6 and that the petrol
utilised in those vehicles were also for accused 6’s
benefit,
·
The pool
maintenance payments made by accused 2, was made in terms of an
agreement between accused 1 and 6  (which accused
6 accepted in
his plea as a gratification),
·
Airline
ticket to the value of R2 218,00 has been accepted by accused 6
as his gratification, there are no further alleged
gratifications
attributed to accused 7 which remain unexplained.
116.
The State
did not adduce evidence of accused 7’s interventions on behalf
of accused 1, 2 and 3.
117.
Brigadier
Hansraj’s s testimony concerning accused 7’s alleged
interventions are:
117.1
that
accused 7 asked her to calm accused 1 down and see him out of the
building.
117.2
that
accused 7 behaved aggressively towards her in a meeting chaired by
accused 5 and harassed her for causing an investigation
into the
accused’s conduct.
118.
Neither of
the above allegations constitute proof of the commission of an
offence by accused 7 for which she is charged in this
case.
119.
Brigadier
Pillay alleged that when accused 1 called him to say that the vehicle
driven by the suspect during the burglary at his
brother’s flat
had been seen in Gugulethu, he heard accused 7’s voice in the
background and he heard her say that if
Milnerton police cannot
pursue the vehicle, she can.
120.
Although
Pillay was challenged during cross-examination on how he knew it was
accused 7 speaking, he provided a plausible answer
to the challenge
as set out in the summary of his evidence earlier.
121.
Accused 6
confirms his willingness to go to Gugulethu.  The allegation
that accused 7 also expressed her willingness to do
so, is not
disproved.  The court accepts that accused 7 accordingly offered
to assist accused 1.
122.
That offer
does not however amount to unduly preferring accused 1 in
compensation for gratifications provided because no gratifications
to
her were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
123.
The
corruption charge is the predicate offence for which a conviction is
required to succeed in the POCA related charges.
Law
Applicable to the offence of Corrupt Activities involving a Public
Officer
124.
PRECCAA is
the primary anti-corruption legislation in South Africa. It was
enacted to deal more comprehensively with the corrosive
scourge of
corruption in all its manifestations than previous anti-corruption
statutes.  It provides a general offence of
corruption; creates
offences in respect of corrupt activities relating to specific
persons; offences in respect of persons in an
employment
relationship; offences in respect of corrupt activities relating to
specific matters and various offences relating to
possible conflict
of interest and other unacceptable conduct as well as offences of
accessory to or after an offence, attempt,
conspiracy and inducing
another person to commit an offence
.
125.
Section
4(1)(a)(i)(aa)
which describes offences in respect of corrupt
activities relating to public officers contained in Chapter 2, Part 2
of the Act
provides as follows:
‘
(1)
Any─ (a) public officer, who directly or indirectly, accepts or
agrees or offers to accept any gratification from any
other person,
whether for the benefit of himself or herself or for the benefit of
another person; or (b) . . . in order to act,
personally or by
influencing another person so to act, in a manner─ (i) that
amounts to the─ (aa) illegal, dishonest,
unauthorised,
incomplete, or biased; or (bb) . . . exercise, carrying out or
performance of any powers, duties or functions arising
out of a
constitutional, statutory, contractual or any other legal obligation;
. . . is guilty of the offence of corrupt activities
relating to
public officer
126.
The primary
motivation for the enactment of PRECCAA is set out in its preamble
which
inter
alia,
reads
as follows:
“
WHEREAS
the
Constitution enshrines the rights of all people in the Republic and
affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality
and
freedom;
AND
WHEREAS
the
Constitution places a duty on the State to respect, protect, promote
and fulfil all the rights as enshrined in the Bill
of Rights;
AND
WHEREAS
corruption
and related corrupt activities undermine the said rights, endanger
the stability and security of societies, undermine
the institutions
and values of democracy and ethical values and morality, jeopardise
sustainable development, the rule of law and
the credibility of
governments, and provide a breeding ground for organised crime;
AND
WHEREAS
the
illicit acquisition of personal wealth can be particularly damaging
to democratic institutions, national economies, ethical
values and
the rule of law;
AND
WHEREAS
there
are links between corrupt activities and other forms of crime, in
particular organised crime and economic crime, including

money-laundering;
AND
WHEREAS
corruption
is a transnational phenomenon that crosses national borders and
affects all societies and economies, and is equally
destructive and
reprehensible within both the public and private spheres of life, so
that regional and international cooperation
is essential to prevent
and control corruption and related corrupt activities;
…”
127
.
Section 4
(1) (b) deals with misconduct by the corruptor which can take the
form of either direct or indirect gratifications. That
sub-section
goes on to describe the element of intent that must be present.It
merely uses the words: “ in order to act…”.
It
doesn’t qualify the intent of the corruptor in seeking an undue
intervention from the corruptee. No provision is made
in sub-section
4(1) (b) for a direct or indirect intent because it is an integral
part of the offence that the corruptor must have
intended to provide
a gratification with the specific intent of deriving some undue
benefit.
128
.
Elements of
the offence of corrupt activities relating to public officers as
contained in sections 4(1) and  4(2) of “
PRECCAA”
are as follows:
128.1
There must
have been an offer of or actual gratification given to a public
officer;
128.2
That
gratification must be given for the purpose of moving the public
officer to act in a manner that amounts to the unlawful exercise
of
or the failure to exercise his duty, functions or authority. This
requirement contemplates an improper act or omission i.e.

unlawfulness.
128.3
That act
must be designed to achieve an unjustified result i.e. intention.
This aspect is the consequence of improper conduct which
leads to an
undue result.
129.
In
Selebi
v The State
2012(1)
SA 487 (SCA)
the
appeal court held as follows concerning the elements of the offence
of corrupt activities:
“
[9] The first element
(acceptance) is self explanatory and does not require any
elucidation. As for the second element (gratification)
it is said to
include ‘money, whether in cash or otherwise’. The third
element (inducement) depends on whether receipt
of the gratification
is directed at procuring the recipient to act in one or more of the
ways as set out in the subsection. I have
dealt with ‘unlawfulness’.
Just as with ‘unlawfulness’, ‘intention’
referred to in (e) above,
is not specifically mentioned in the
definition section of the PCCA Act but the definition must be
construed as requiring intention.
The recipient must have the
required intention at the moment he receives the gratification.
Snyman says: ‘[I]ntention always
includes a certain knowledge,
namely knowledge of the nature of the act, the presence of the
definitional elements and the unlawfulness.
A person has knowledge of
a fact not only if she is convinced of its existence, but also if she
foresees the possibility of the
existence of the fact but is reckless
towards it; in other words she does not allow herself to be deterred
by the possibility of
the existence of such fact. She then has
intention in the form of dolus eventualis.’  “
130
.
The court
said the following at para 39 of
Selebi’s
case
concerning the element of  intention in section 4(1) of the Act:
“
Intention / mens
rea
[39]
I turn to consider the question whether the State succeeded in
proving beyond reasonable doubt that the payments were received
from
Agliotti and any quid pro quo was afforded with the requisite mens
rea. I have already alluded to the fact that s 4(1)(a)(i)
of the PCCA
Act does not specifically refer to intention but rather uses the
words ‘in order to act, personally or by influencing
another
person so to act . . .’. According to Burchell these words at
least import some ‘intention’ element.
Besides, there is
a presumption in our law that mens rea is required for a
contravention of a statutory provision. In the case
of a
contravention of s 4 of the PCCA Act the legislature has made it
easier for the State to prove the presence of ‘intention’.

Section 24 of the PCCA Act provides that once the prosecution has
proved that gratification (payment) was accepted or agreed and
the
State can show that despite having taken reasonable steps, it was not
able with reasonable certainty to link the
acceptance of the
gratification to a lawful authority or excuse on the part of the
person charged, and in the absence of evidence
to the contrary which
raises reasonable doubt, it is sufficient evidence that the person
charged accepted such gratification of
that person ‘in order to
act’ in a manner envisaged in s 4 of the PCCA Act. The
provisions relate to a rebuttable presumption
of mens rea, including
knowledge of unlawfulness, which is rebuttable by the person
charged.”
131
.
The
minority judgment in
Selebi
provides direction concerning the interpretation of section 4(1) read
with section 4 (2) as follows:
“
[
97]
Section 4, in my view, does not require an agreement between the
corruptor and the corruptee, nor does it require a quid pro
quo from
the corruptee. It must be plainly understood that the conviction in
this case on the evidence that established an agreement
and the
giving of a quid pro quo, is not the low water mark of the section.
[98]
On the view that I take of s 4, the trial court would have been
justified to convict the appellant even without a finding that
he had
provided a quid pro quo. Section 4 (1)(a)(ii) reads: ‘Any
public officer who . . . accepts . . . any gratification
from any
other person . . . in order to act, . . . in a manner that amounts to
– (aa) the abuse of a position of authority;
(bb) a breach of
trust; or (cc) the violation of a legal duty or a set of rules; is
guilty of the offence of corrupt activities
relating to public
officers.’
[99]
Section 25 of the PCCA Act supports the wide interpretation of s 4.
It provides: ‘Whenever an accused person is charged
with an
offence under Part 1, 2, 3 or 4, or section 20 or 21 (in so far as it
relates to the aforementioned offences) of Chapter
2, it is not a
valid defence for that accused person to contend that he or she–
(a) did not have the power, right or opportunity
to perform or not to
perform the act in relation to which the gratification was given,
accepted or offered; (b) accepted or agreed
or offered to accept, or
gave or agreed or offered to give the gratification without intending
to perform or not to perform the
act in relation to which the
gratification was given, accepted or offered; or (c) failed to
perform or not to perform the act in
relation to which the
gratification was given, accepted or offered.’ ”
132
.
In casu
the
civilian accused, namely accused 1, 2 & 3 have all admitted in
their plea of guilty that they provided accused 4,5 &
6 with
gratifications.
133.
Accused 4,
5 & 6 were public officers at the time when they received those
gratifications. They admitted in their pleas that
they received the
gratifications from accused 1, 2 or 3.
134.
Accused 1,
2 & 3 further admitted in their plea that they provided the
gratifications for the purpose of obtaining assistance
or
preferential treatment for accused 1 or for persons that accused 1
sought assistance for.
135
.
Accused 4,
5 & 6 admitted in their pleas that they provided accused 1 or
those for who he sought assistance, with undue interventions.
136
.
Accused
1,2,3,4,5 & 6 all admitted that the acts made by accused 4,5 &
6 had the effect of unjustifiably preferring accused
1 or those
persons on whose behalf he sought their intervention.
137.
It has been
said that corruption is a crime of double intention.  The
corruptee/recipient must not only intend to receive the
gratification
but also do so in order to act in a certain way.  There can be
no doubt that not only did accused 4 to 6 receive
financial benefit
from accused 1 to 3, but also intended to and did cause themselves or
other police officers to give preferential
treatment to accused 1, 2
and 3 and to use police officers to do accused 1’s bidding.
138.
The State
adduced no evidence on counts 1 and 2, i.e. the alleged racketeering
in contravention of  the
POCA
and asked for an acquittal on those counts.
139.
Similarly
the State led no evidence on counts 28 to 109, i.e. the alleged
money-laundering offences in contravention of the
POCA
and
asked for an acquittal on those counts.
140.
The State
was clearly content to proceed with the predicate offences which may
have given rise to the POCA offences.
141
.
I turn now
to deal with the remaining counts on which the accused pleaded not
guilty and for which an acquittal is sought.
COUNT
6:
142.
This count
relates to the allegation that accused 1 to 3 have committed corrupt
activities relating to a public officer, namely,
accused 7 by
offering or giving her gratifications.
143
.
Accused 6
and 7 are married and share a common household and have common
children.
144
.
The alleged
gratifications given to accused 7 are summarised in Warrant Officer
Wynand Wessels, the forensic investigator’s
relevant testimony
above.
145.
Accused 6
admits in his section 112(2) plea that the gratifications allegedly
received by accused 7 were in fact destined for him
and that he
enjoyed the benefit of those gratifications and provided accused 1 to
3 with interventions therefor.
146.
In the
absence of a plea of guilty by accused 7, the evidence adduced read
with the admissions of accused 4 to 6 do not constitute
proof beyond
reasonable doubt that accused 1 to 3  committed the offence of
corrupt activities  in relation to accused
7.
COUNT
11:
147
.
This count
concerns accused 1 to 3 allegedly offering or giving a gratification
valued at R5 000 to Warrant Officer Ainslee
for the setting of
bail for an accused in a Lansdowne case on 18 April 2011.
148.
No evidence
was led and no admissions were made concerning this count.
Accused 1 to 3 stand to be acquitted on this count.
Charges
other than corruption, for which accused 1 to 3 only pleaded guilty
COUNT
16:
149.
The summary
of substantial facts incorporated into the indictment relating to
this count are as follows:
“
FRAUD
(Accused
1 to 3)
IN
THAT during or about the period 09.06.2011 to 09.10.2013, on the
specific dates mentioned in Column 2 of
Schedule 9
and at or
near Goodwood, in the district of Goodwood and/or Cape Town, in the
district of The Cape, Accused 1 to 3 wrongfully,
unlawfully and with
the intent to defraud, falsely and to the prejudice, either real or
potential, of the SA Police Service, and/or
SAPS officials mentioned
in Column 3 of Schedule 9.
Gave
out to the aforesaid SAPS that the quotations to the value of
R42 610,00 submitted by Accused 2, Accused 3 and Shine the
Way
307 CC mentioned in Columns 4, 5 and 6 of
Schedule 9
and were
fair, competitive, independent, proper and genuine quotations;
and/or
Failed
to reveal to the abovementioned persons and/or entities, when there
was a legal duty so to reveal, that the abovementioned
quotations
were directed by Accused 1, and/or Accused 1 was the sole member of
all three of the bidders, as described in the Preamble.”
150.
Accused 1,
2 and 3 pleaded guilty to this count in the following manner:
“
40.
“I was the sole member of Cape Tow-Bar CC (accused 2), Tow Bar
King CC (accused 3) and Shine the Way 307 CC.  All
three CC’s
fit towbars.  On 9 October 2013 I was approached by Warrant
Officer Pieterse to quote on supplying and
fitting a towbar to a
police vehicle.  He requested me to supply three quotes.
41.
I
in turn requested my employees in the three CC’s to supply
quotes on supplying and fitting a towbar.  They did.
I
failed to disclose that I was the sole member of the three CC’s
to Pieterse or the SAPS.  The names of the three managers
of the
three CC’s appeared on the quotes.
42.
The
work was never carried out.  Unbeknown to me Pieterse had been
sent to trap me into giving him the three quotes he requested.”
151.
The
preamble to the indictment contains the following allegations:
”
53.
The system, for the procurement of goods and services for State
institutions is governed
by Section 217 of the Constitution, Act No.
108 of 1996.  It is required that the relevant [Supply Chain
Management
(“SCM”) system must be fair, equitable,
transparent, competitive and cost-effective.
54.
Chapter 4 of the SAPS national supply-chain management instructions
(“SCMIs”)
contains instructions requiring price
quotations for the acquisition of goods and services for the SAPS.
Prospective suppliers
must apply to be listed in a register that must
be kept.  Price quotations must only be invited from suppliers
appearing on
the list of prospective suppliers.
55.
In terms of Paragraph 4.2.1.10 of the SCMIs, at least 3 price
quotations must
be obtained for the provision of goods and services
above R2000.
56.
The Pocket Guide for the Invitation and Consideration of Price
Quotations
(“PGICPQ”), issued by the SAPS SCM
Division, contains guidelines relevant to quotations for the supply
of goods and
services.  In terms of Paragraph 9.1.2 of the
PGICPQ, at least 3 written quotations must be obtained from suppliers
appearing
on the list of prospective suppliers for the acquisition of
goods and services above the value of R2000 but not exceeding
R30 000.
57.
It is implicit in the
Constitutionally required fair, equitable, transparent, competitive

and cost-effective SAPS SCM system that the prescribed 3 quotations
must properly be quotations from three different suppliers
who are
independent of each other and who do not each know what the other
competing quotations are.  Any quotation from a
supplier who is
not independent of the others or who bears knowledge of or controls
any of the competing quotations would fall
foul of the requirements.
58.
In some instances, bidders were required to sign a  “Certificate
of independent bid determination”, in which the declarant
certified that there had been no consultations, communications,

agreements or arrangements with any competitor regarding the contents
of the respective bids, including the price.
59.
Various SAPS officials are involved in processing the applications
for acquisitions
based on the required three quotations and approving
the highest scoring qualifying quotation, based on the lowest price
quoted.
Such SAPS officials reasonably rely on the required
three quotations as genuine, in the sense that they are truly
supplied from
three independent suppliers, with no knowledge of the
details or price of the other bids, so as to comply with the
fairness, equity,
transparency, competitiveness and
cost-effectiveness that is required.
60.
As indicated in Chapter 1 above, Accused 1 was the sole member of
Accused 2
and 3.  Accused 2 and 3 were registered on the SAPS
list of supplier.
61.
On 05.04.2004, Shine the Way 307 CC (‘STW 307), registration
number 2004/031968/23
was incorporated.
62.
Accused 1 was registered as the sole remaining member of STW 307 on
05.09.2005.
63.
STW 307 traded as Bullbar Towbar Manufacturers  (“BTM”
at Shop
2, Joe Hattingh Street, N1 City, Goodwood.  This is the
same address as Accused 2.
64.
STW 307, STW 307 trading as BTM and/or BTM were not registered on the
SAPS list
of suppliers.
65.
Information was received that Accused 1 engaged in “cover
quoting”
to provide SAPS applicants for tow-bar fittings with
three quotations, including from Accused 2 and 3 and BTM.  As a
result,
two operations in terms of section 252A of the Criminal
Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977  (“CPA”), were
conducted
on 28.02.2013 and 09.10.2013.  Both revealed that the
three quotations produced to the agents purportedly from Accused 2, 3

and STW 307, trading as BTM, were generated from the same premises at
the same time, under Accused 1’s directions.
66.
The quotation dated 27.03.2013 was, as SAPS required, accompanied by
a
“Declaration of interest”  (“DOI”)
form.  The names and identity numbers of the bidders and “Full

details of directors/trustees/members/shareholders” were
indicated on the DOI forms.
67.
The DOI forms failed to indicate that Accused 1 was the sole member
of all three
bidders.
68.
…
69.
…
70.
...
71.
...
72.
...
73.
As a result of Accused 1 to 3’s misrepresentations and failures
to reveal
the truth, the SAPS payment to Accused 2 in each case was
thus not a payment that was fair, equitable, transparent,
competitive,
and cost-effective.”
152.
Fraud has
been described by
CR
Snyman:  Criminal Law 6
th
ed  (2014) at 523
as the
unlawful
and
intentional
making of a
misrepresentation
which causes actual
prejudice
or
which is
potentially
prejudicial
to another.
153.
I have
emphasised the elements of the offence above.
154.
The bases
on which accused 1, 2 and 3 plead guilty is the failure to disclose:
-
·
That
accused 1 had the sole financial interest in each of the three Close
Corporations whose quotations he provided;
·
That the
quotations were accordingly not those of three independent juristic
entities that held themselves out to be willing to
do the required
work and supply the necessary goods.
155.
The plea
contains the exculpatory statement that the prices in the quotations
were market related prices.
156.
The
patently obvious purpose of requiring three independent quotations,
is to ensure that the SAPS is able to select the most cost
effective
one.  The prejudice or potential prejudice to the SAPS lies in
it being denied the opportunity to make that selection
in
circumstances where each juristic entity would not know the other’s
best price and where the true market value could be
independently
tested.
157.
The nature
of the intention present in the plea on this count is not one where
accused 1, 2 and 3 foresaw that the representation
may be false but
nonetheless decided to make it.
158
.
Accused 1,
2 and 3, through the conduct of accused 1, who held sole ownership of
all three close corporations, actually knew that
those close
corporations were not independent from one another but nonetheless
proceeded to hold out that they were.
Dolus
directus
is accordingly applicable to the intention exercised here.
COUNTS
17 – 21:
COUNT
17:
159.
This count
concerns an allegation that accused 1 and 6 traded in a firearm, by
selling it or giving possession of it to a person
who is not entitled
to such possession, when they did not have a firearm dealer’s
licence.
160.
Item 37 of
Schedule 6 to the indictment summarises the State’s allegations
concerning this count as follows:
“
On 15.08.2013
Accused 1 took the Norinco to Brussels Stockmakers, Parow to have it
refurbished.  Ross went with Accused 1.
He was introduced
as the intended new owner.
As a non-licence
holder and notionally permitted Storer in terms of FCR 86(4), Accused
1 was not permitted to remove and transport
the Norinco from the
place of storage, being the safe at his residential address in
Plattekloof.
Accused 1 was unable
to produce a licence.  He produced instead the FCR 86(4) form.
A few days later,
Brussels Stockmakers called Ross to inform him of the costs of
repair, which he authorized.
On 21.08.2013,
Brussels Stockmakers called Ross to collect the Norinco.
Ross called both
Accused 1 and 6 to confirm that he could collect the Norinco.
Both Accused 1 and Accused 6 assured Ross that
the FCR 86(4) form was
sufficient, as long as he stored the Norinco in the prescribed safe
that he had installed.
Sometime thereafter,
Ross paid the refurbishment bill, collected the Norinco and stored it
in his safe
.”
161.
No evidence
was led concerning this count.
COUNT
18:
162.
This count
concerns the same firearm mentioned in count 17, but is a charge of
accused 1 allegedly being in unlawful and wrongful
possession of the
firearm and accused 1 and 6 causing the firearm to be placed in
possession of Mr Ross when none of them had a
licence to possess that
firearm.
COUNT
19:
163.
This count
contains the allegation that accused 1 and 6 knew that Mrs Mullins,
whose deceased husband owned the firearm, was not
the lawful
possessor of the firearm, but nonetheless caused the completion of a
Regulation 86(4) form in which a false impression
was created that
Mrs Mullins had the lawful authority to grant accused 1 permission to
store the firearm on her behalf.  This
count relates to the same
firearm mentioned in counts 17 and 18.
COUNT
20:
164.
This count
concerns accused 1 and 6’s alleged failure to report that Mr
Ross was in unlawful possession of the firearm referred
to in counts
17 – 19.
COUNT
21:
165.
This count
concerns accused 6 allegedly having wrongfully, unlawfully and
intentionally caused Hendricks to receive complete and
submit a
firearm licence application for Mr Ross when Hendricks wasn’t
the designated firearms officer for Durbanville or
Goodwood.
166.
No evidence
was led in support of the allegations contained in counts 17 to 21.
167.
It is
patently clear that the allegation that accused 1 and 6 caused Mr
Ross to have possession of the relevant firearm encompasses
implicit
allegations that formed the basis of counts 18 to 20.
168.
In my view,
counts 18 to 20 amount to a duplication of charges.
169.
Accused 6’s
section 220 admission in para 9.6 reads as follows:
“
9.6. During
July 2013 I arranged an appointment for Mr Ross with the designated
police officer, Captain Hendriks, to assist Ross
with the application
for a fire-arm license.  Ross accordingly attended at the Cape
Town police station and Hendricks assisted
him with the motivation of
the application.  (Item 36.)”
170.
The
above-stated does no more than admit that accused 6 procured an
appointment for Mr Ross with Captain Hendricks.
171.
Accused 6’s
admission does not go far enough in that it does not include a
statement that accused 6, in arranging the appointment
between Mr
Ross and Captain Hendricks, knew that Captain Hendricks would
receive, complete and submit Ross’ application to
possess a
firearm. Accused 6’s admission does not constitute sufficient
proof that he knew exactly what role Captain Hendricks
would play in
rendering assistance to Mr Ross, as envisaged by count 21.
172.
Accused 1
and 6 therefore stand to be acquitted on counts 17 to 20 and accused
6 ought to be acquitted on count 21.
COUNT
22:
173.
This count
concerns accused 1 allegedly purchasing ammunition without having a
licence to possess the ammunition.  Accused
1 allegedly used
SAPS printouts from their database showing that accused 1 and his
wife were licence holders.
174.
Accused 6
admitted that he provided accused 1 with said printouts.
175.
Paragraph
9.7 of accused 6’s admissions reads as follows:
“
9.7
During August 2013 Accused 1 enquired from me to make printouts of
his and his wife’s fire-arm
registrations to see whether he
would qualify for another firearm.  I then asked W/O Knoetzen to
make the printouts.
(Item 43
).”
176.
Accused 6
was not charged with count 22.  Accused 1’s intention to
use the printouts and his wife’s firearm licence
for the
unlawful possession of ammunition and his alleged possession were not
proved as no evidence was led on this count.
COUNT
23:
177.
This count
concerns accused 1 allegedly using his wife’s firearm licence
to obtain possession of the ammunition mentioned
in count 22.
178.
No evidence
was led of facts in support of this count and no admissions were made
concerning this count either.
179.
Accused 1
accordingly stand to be acquitted on this count.
COUNT
24:
180.
Concerns
accused 1 allegedly purchasing ammunition for a different calibre
firearm than that mentioned in count 23 .No evidence
was led and no
admissions were made concerning this allegation.
181.
Accused 1
accordingly stands to be acquitted on this count.
COUNT
25:
182.
The basis
upon which the state alleged in the indictment that accused 1 had
defeated or obstructed the course of justice is set
out in the
preamble to the indictment as follows:
“
DEFEATING
OR OBSTRUCTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
111.
Accused 1 became aware that there was a DPCI investigation concerning
his allegedly
corrupt relationship with Accused 4, including giving
gratifications to Accused 4.  On or about 02.05.2012, Accused 1
caused
affidavits to be drafted and signed by employees in the employ
of Accused 2, namely Annelise Theron, Lindy-Lou Loock and Togieda

Moosa.  Each affidavit was to the following effect:
·
Accused
1 and Accused 4 had been acquainted for over twenty years;
·
Each of
the deponents was not aware of any funds paid to Accused 4;
·
Each of
the deponents was aware of donations to the SAPS;
·
In the
case of Lindy-Lou Loock, no financial transactions were done without
her knowledge as bookkeeper.
112.
Accused 1 said that he wanted the affidavits to  “counter
Col Asaram”.
Accused 1 was well aware that he had by then
given Accused 4 the gratifications mentioned in items 1 to 4 of
Schedule
1,
in the case of item 1 using the bank account of Accused 3 and in the
case of item 3, using the bank account of Accused 2.
Accused 1
was well aware that the affidavits did not reflect the truth.
They were designed to mislead the DPCI investigation
then current and
conceal the gratifications that he, and/or Accused 2 and/or Accused 3
had given to Accused 4.”
183.
Accused 1
admitted in his plea that he wrongfully, unlawfully with the
intention to defeat or obstruct the course of justice, caused
a
letter to be drafted in the name of an employee of accused 2, in
which she stated that she was not aware of any funds paid to
accused
4.  Accused 1 further admitted that he knew that the employee
knew that he had made certain payments for accused 4
because the
employee was the bookkeeper.  Accused 1 also admitted that he
acquired the letter for the purpose of countering
allegations that
his relationship with accused 4 was somehow corrupt.
184.
Snyman at
327 describes the offence of
defeating
or obstructing
the course of justice as unlawfully and
intentionally
engaging in
conduct
which defeats or obstructs
the
course of or administration of justice.
185.
The words
emphasised above constitute the elements of the offence.
186.
The offence
often encompasses other offences and those could include,
inter
alia
,
fraud, forgery or perjury.
187.
On accused
1’s admission, the letter contains false information.
That information is undoubtedly a misrepresentation.
On accused
1’s admission, the letter was designed to counter allegations
of corruption.  The potential prejudice lies
in the
administration of justice being impeded by that misrepresentation.
188.
When viewed
in conjunction with accused 1’s plea of guilty on count 3,
there can be no doubt that accused 1 knew that the
representation
contained in the letter was false.  His intention to conceal the
true position in the letter amounts to him
subjectively knowing that
the representation is false and nonetheless proceeding to cause the
letter to be drafted and kept under
his control with the intention of
hampering an investigation into alleged corruption.  The intent
present here is
dolus
directus.
COUNT
26:
189.
This count
concerns accused 1 failing to disclose certain material facts to
Alphera Financial Services, a company that entered into
a credit
agreement with accused 1 for the purchase of a motor vehicle which
was to be paid by accused 1 in instalments.
190.
The
following material provisions of the agreement set out in the summary
of substantial facts to the indictment are as follows:
“
116.
Accused 1 intended at all times not to comply with all the following
standard clauses in the ISA with Alphera that stipulated
the
following:
3.1
– Ownership of the Polo remained with Alphera until all amounts
due in terms of the ISA were paid;
7.1.1
– Accused 1 was obliged to keep the Polo in his possession or
under his control at all times;
7.5
– Accused 1 may not have sold the Polo, nor have ceded,
assigned or delegated any of his obligations in terms of the ISA,
nor
let or parted with possession of the Polo;
7.7
– Accused 1 may not have parted with possession of the Polo;
9.1
– If the Polo became lost, Accused 1 was obliged immediately to
inform Alphera in writing;
13.
– If the Polo was kept on any premises not owned by Accused 1,
he was obliged immediately to notify Alphera of the name
and address
of the owner of the premises;
26.1
– Accused 1 was obliged to inform Alphera in writing of any
change concerning:
26.1.2
– the address of the premises in which the Polo was ordinarily
kept;
26.1.3
– the name and address of any other person to whom possession
of the Polo had been transferred.”
191.
The
indictment contains the following allegations concerning this count:
“
117.
The abovementioned clauses are designed to provide the financier who
retains ownership
of the vehicle under an ISA with adequate security
against the risk of loss, given the inherent risk attaching to the
purchaser
not possessing the vehicle for the duration of the Isa.
118.
Accused 1 misled Alphera, to its prejudice or potential prejudice, by
pretending
that the ISA was genuine and by failing to reveal that, in
fact, the ISA was simulated to provide credit to Petersen, who was
blacklisted,
and that Accused 1 intended to ignore all the
abovementioned provisions in the ISA when he concluded the ISA.”
192.
Accused 1’s
plea contains the following relevant admissions:
“
55.
I admit that I failed to comply with certain sub-clauses of the
instalment sale agreement with Alphera Financial Services as set
out
on page 59 of the indictment being:
55.1
The
Polo was to be kept in my possession or under my control at all
times;
55.2
If
the Polo became lost or stolen I was obliged to immediately inform
Alphera in writing thereof;
55.3
I
was obliged to inform Alphera in writing of any change concerning;
·
the
address of the premises in which the Polo was ordinarily kept;
·
the name
and address of any other person to whom possession of the Polo had
been transferred.
56.
I
did not and had no intention of keeping the vehicle in my possession
or under my control when I signed the agreement.  I
did not
inform Alphera in writing of the address where the Polo was
ordinarily kept nor did I in writing tell them of the transfer
of
possession to Mr Petersen.
57.
…
58.
I
accordingly admit that on or about 27.05.2011 and at or near
Goodwood, in the district of Goodwood, I wrongfully, unlawfully and

with the intent to defraud, falsely and to the potential prejudice of
Alphera Financial Services, failed to inform them of the
underlying
agreement I had with Petersen and that Petersen was to take
possession of and use the vehicle and store the vehicle
away from
me.”
193.
Accused 1
says in his plea that the vehicle was recovered, returned to him and
he paid Alphera Financial Services in full.
194.
The facts
admitted by accused 1, for which no evidence has been led, prove
potential prejudice.
195.
Accused 1
knew the true position concerning the facts that he omitted at the
time when he transacted with Alphera.  His intention
was to
advance the interest of Petersen to the potential prejudice of
Alphera.  The intent here is
dolus
directus.
COUNT
27
196.
This count
refers to item 51 of Schedule 6 to the indictment which reads as
follows:
“
Accused 1 and
Accused 5 failed in the affidavit accurately to describe the true
circumstances of the alleged offence of driving
a motor vehicle
without the owner’s consent.  In particular, the affidavit
did not reveal the following details:
·
The ISA
with Alphera was a simulated transaction in terms of which Petersen,
and not Accused 1, was the actual purchaser;
·
Petersen
would immediately take possession of the Polo and keep and use it
in
Durban
,
obviously
with Accused 1’s consent, inasmuch as this was necessary;
·
If
Accused 1 validly withdrew his consent for Petersen to use the Polo
after Petersen failed to honour the agreement to continue
the monthly
payments, Petersen was using the Polo without his consent
in
Durban
.
In all the
circumstances, Accused 1’s affidavit was calculated to mislead
and cause the false impression that the failure
to pay amounted to
the offences of use without the owner’s consent and/or theft.
If so, the affidavit falsely created
the impression that such
offences had occurred, or at least commenced, in the SAPS Bellville
Cluster area.
The misleading
affidavit was calculated wrongly to vest SAPS and Accused 5 with the
criminal jurisdiction to investigate what was
essentially a civil
dispute for breach of contract that had occurred in Durban.
Ultimately, the
misleading affidavit was calculated to facilitate Accused 5’s
improper intervention to assist Accused 1 to
recover the Polo
.”
197.
On a
reading of the above paragraph and the affidavit of accused 1 annexed
to his section 112(2) plea, it is clear that accused
1 did indeed
fail to disclose the following:
197.1
That he intended to transfer ownership of the vehicle to Petersen
when the vehicle was paid for;
197.2
That Petersen took possession of the vehicle for his personal use in
Durban with his consent prior to him
rescinding his consent.
198.
The intent
of accused 1 was that of actual knowledge that the omissions would
serve to cause SAPS Durban to investigate a criminal
case.
199.
No evidence
was adduced concerning the statement at the trial.
200.
There is no
evidence that accused 5 knew that the omissions of accused 1 as
stated above existed at the time when he commissioned
the affidavit.
201.
Accused 5
accordingly stand to be acquitted on count 27.
202.
Accused 1
pleads guilty to this count and was convicted on that plea.
Accused 1 with full knowledge of the correct facts,
concealed them
and in so doing acted with direct intent, i.e.
dolus
directus
.
203.
The
evidence led in this trial reached the stage where it only made out a
case for accused 1 to 6 to meet concerning corrupt activities
and the
influence peddling that accompanied that offence.
204.
In the
absence of sufficient evidence concerning the counts for which the
accused pleaded not guilty, this court finds that the
State has not
discharged its
onus
of
proof beyond reasonable doubt and the accused stand to be acquitted
on those charges.
IT
IS ORDERED THAT:
ACCUSED
1, 2 & 3:  MOHAMED SALEEM DAWJEE  (Personally and as
representative of accused 2 and 3)
Count
1:
Racketeering  -  NOT GUILTY
Count
2:
Racketeering  -  NOT GUILTY
Count
3:          Corruption
-  GUILTY
Count
4:          Corruption
-  GUILTY
Count
5:          Corruption
-  GUILTY
Count
6:          Corruption
-  NOT GUILTY
Count
11:        Corruption- NOT GUILTY
Count
12:        Corruption-GUILTY
Count
13:        Corruption-GUILTY
Count
14:        Corruption-GUILTY
Count
15:        Corruption-GUILTY
Count
16:        Fraud  -
GUILTY
Count
17:      Trading in a firearm without a
dealer’s license - NOT GUILTY
Count
18:        Possession of firearm
without a licence - NOT GUILTY
Count
19:        Supplying false
particulars in a permit or authorization - NOT GUILTY
Count
20:        Failing to report
unlicensed possession of a firearm - NOT GUILTY
Count
22:        Possession of
ammunition without a license -  NOT GUILTY
Count
23:        Using a license issued
in the name of another person to procure possession of
ammunition -
NOT GUILTY
Count
24:        Possession of more than
200 cartridges for a licenced firearm - NOT GUILTY
Count
25:        Defeating or
obstructing the course of justice  -  GUILTY
Count
26:        Fraud  -
GUILTY
Count
27:        Defeating or
obstructing the course of justice  -  GUILTY
Counts
28 – 109:  Money laundering  -  NOT GUILTY
ACCUSED
4:  ARNO HEINRICH LAMOER
Count
2:
Racketeering  -  NOT GUILTY
Count
7:          Corruption
-  GUILTY
Counts
28 – 109:  Money laundering  -  NOT GUILTY
ACCUSED
5:  DARIUS VAN DER ROSS
Count
2:
Racketeering  -  NOT GUILTY
Count
8:          Corruption
-  GUILTY
Counts
28 – 109:  Money laundering  -  NOT GUILTY
ACCUSED
6:  KOLINDREN GOVENDER
Count
2:
Racketeering  -  NOT GUILTY
Count
9:          Corruption
-  GUILTY
Count
17:        Trading in a firearm
without a dealer’s licence  -NOT GUILTY
Count
18:        Possession of firearm
without a licence: NOT GUILTY
Count
19:        Supplying false
particulars in a permit or authorization: - NOT GUILTY
Count
20:        Failing to report
unlicensed possession of a firearm: NOT GUILTY
Count
21:        Causing a person other
than the relevant Designated Firearms Officer receiving,
completing
and submitting an application for a licence to possess a firearm
-  NOT GUILTY
Counts
28 – 109:  Money laundering  -  NOT GUILTY
ACCUSED
7: LOGAMBAL  (“SHARON”) GOVENDER
:
Count
2: Racketeering  -  NOT GUILTY
Count
10: Corruption: - NOT GUILTY
Counts
28 – 109:  Money laundering  -  NOT GUILTY
_______________
JUDGE
R. ALLIE