RESOURCES

Jackie Selebi's complaints about the prosecution

IOL

03 November 2009

Former says NPA's actions caused material prejudice in his trial preparation

IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG

(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)

CASE NO: 2512009

In re:

THE STATE

and

J S SELEBI Accused

APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL ENTRY IN TERMS OF SECTION 317 OF ACT 51 OF 1977

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Accused applies herewith for a special entry to be made on the record in terms of section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the grounds for the special entry are the following:

1. The Accused is not afforded a fair trial as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa in view of the fact that the Prosecution withheld important statements of State witnesses from the Defence causing material prejudice in the preparation for trial. The following is inter alia referred to:

The statement of Billy Rautenbach, a material State witness was only handed to the Defence on the 1st of October 2009 although it was already deposed to during June 2009;

The statements of Tania Volschenk and Dennis Kekana was only handed to the Defence on the 5th of October 2009 whereas it had already been deposed to on the 30th of January 2008 and 14 February 2008 respectively.

The statements of Messrs Fraser Manzini and Ramabulana has only been handed to the Defence on the 16th of October 2009 whereas the Prosecution already indicated to the Honourable Court on the 14 April 2009 that all difficulties regarding the statements had been resolved at that stage. The statements had been signed on the 5th of October 2009, 9th of October 2009 and I 3th of October 2009 respectively.

The statement of one Heynecke with a voluminous list of telephone calls (57 pages) of the Accused had been handed to the Defence on the 5th of October 2009 whilst it was obtained already on the 17th of January 2008.

2. The Accused is not afforded a fair trial as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa in view of the fact that it appears that the Prosecution on a number of occasions dealing with witnesses obtained a number of preliminary or pro-forma statements from witnesses before a final product was acceptable to the Prosecution. The Prosecution refused and/or neglected to handover these preliminary statements to the Defence in order to assist the Defence with the preparation of the case.

3. The Accused is not afforded a fair trial as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa in view of the fact that the prosecution is not done impartially and/or objectively and the Prosecutor is not impartial and/or objective as is required in terms of the Constitution. Reference is made to the founding affidavit in the application for recusal where this aspect is dealt with in detail.

SIGNED at PRETORIA on the 2nd day of NOVEMBER 2009.
GEYSER & COETZEE
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Source: www.iol.co.za

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter