Fidentia CE J Arthur Brown was on Thursday late for a scheduled appearance in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court, on charges that include fraud involving the Transport, Education and Training Authority (Teta). In the dock without him were co-accused Dr Piet Bothma, Teta's CE, and a newcomer, Jacobus Theart, who is cited in the charge sheet as accused number three.
Scorpions prosecutor Bruce Morrison SC, assisted by Tersia du Toit, told the court they had called the case earlier than expected, and that Brown was not at fault for his absence. He and Du Toit had tried without success to telephone Brown to get him to court sooner, they said. The case was postponed to July 29 in Brown's absence.
Morrison said the investigation was almost completed and that there were "just a few more things to be done". He said he envisaged an additional charge to the current charges of fraud, corruption, money laundering, reckless trading and a contravention of the Financial Intelligent Centre Act.
The fraud charge relating to Teta involves over R2m. Theart faces charges of theft involving R800,000 and money laundering. However, Morrison did not indicate to the court how Theart fitted into the picture. He said both the Cape Town and Randburg Courts had jurisdiction to deal with the case, and he would launch an application to centralize the charges -- so they could all be dealt with together in Cape Town.
In the Teta case, the trio are expected to eventually go on trial in the Cape High Court. Later, Brown alone stood in the dock of the Cape Town Regional Court, where he is to go on trial on September 15 on two charges of fraud, one of theft and one of violating the Companies Act.
These charges relate to his involvement with Fidentia. In these proceedings, Du Toit told magistrate Wilma van der Merwe that she had furnished defence attorney Asghar Mia with further particulars to the charges. At her request the case was postponed to May 30.
Source: Moneyweb
Friday, April 25, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
An executive-minded decision
The issue of land claims and homelessness continues to be one of the most pressing of our social problems. Unsurprisingly, the courts have been drawn into the intricacies of this problem, particularly when it comes to squatters and their removal.
Recently, in the Johannesburg City case, the Constitutional Court sought to guide authorities confronted with the dilemma of the removal of a large group of people who reside in unsafe buildings but who have nowhere else to live. The court's judgement ruled that the relevant authority engaged with the affected dwellers before eviction could take place: "Engagement is a two-way process in which the city and those about to become homeless would talk to each other meaningfully in order to achieve certain objectives." This follows earlier qualifications to the previously absolute right of an authority or land owner to evict persons, but its full implications do not appear to have reached Cape Town.
On March 10, the Cape High Court ordered the eviction of about 20 000 residents from the Joe Slovo settlement. The residents argued that the parties that sought their removal -- a company charged with the task of transforming the settlement into formal housing and the provincial and national ministries -- had no legal standing to bring an application for eviction. They also argued they had a expectation that 70% of the opportunities afforded by the new housing at Joe Slovo would be awarded to their community.
The decision on the argument regarding legitimate expectations is illuminating. Their claim on 70% of Joe Slovo was not denied by the applicants for their eviction. The court accepted this and the entitlement would act as a defence against eviction. But the court also found that the initial occupation was unlawful, which can never give rise to a legitimate expectation, so the residents could not rely in law upon the undertaking that had been given to them.
This is surely a controversial judgment. It cites but one decision as authority for this finding. Although there is no unanimity on the point, there is alternative authority that supports the argument that there is a substantive legitimate expectation, where such an undertaking is given, except if the undertaking is made in violation of a statute or when it is not in the public interest. Neither was the case in this dispute; hence there appears to be a significant injustice if people were removed from land where clear promises had been made to them.
But more problematic is the absence of any engagement as set out by the Constitutional Court. Though the Cape High Court found compliance with the Johannesburg City case, the residents asserted that no meaningful consultation had taken place. The applicants conceded that consultation had been limited. No evidence of such engagement was shown.
A unilateral decision was made to move the residents more then 37km, far from where their children went to school and where many were employed.
Of course a court must seek to balance the state's attempt to give effect to its constitutional obligation to provide housing with the rights of those who are homeless but whose actions may frustrate the housing programme. That will often prove to be a difficult balancing exercise, hence some sympathy for the judicial dilemma. But in this case the court manifestly glossed over the undertaking given to the residents and the legal implications of meaningful engagement before any removal could take place. It is this deference to developers and the diminution of the importance of consultation that makes this judgement so problematic.
This case must raise a debate about the meaning of legal transformation.
Recently, in the Johannesburg City case, the Constitutional Court sought to guide authorities confronted with the dilemma of the removal of a large group of people who reside in unsafe buildings but who have nowhere else to live. The court's judgement ruled that the relevant authority engaged with the affected dwellers before eviction could take place: "Engagement is a two-way process in which the city and those about to become homeless would talk to each other meaningfully in order to achieve certain objectives." This follows earlier qualifications to the previously absolute right of an authority or land owner to evict persons, but its full implications do not appear to have reached Cape Town.
On March 10, the Cape High Court ordered the eviction of about 20 000 residents from the Joe Slovo settlement. The residents argued that the parties that sought their removal -- a company charged with the task of transforming the settlement into formal housing and the provincial and national ministries -- had no legal standing to bring an application for eviction. They also argued they had a expectation that 70% of the opportunities afforded by the new housing at Joe Slovo would be awarded to their community.
The decision on the argument regarding legitimate expectations is illuminating. Their claim on 70% of Joe Slovo was not denied by the applicants for their eviction. The court accepted this and the entitlement would act as a defence against eviction. But the court also found that the initial occupation was unlawful, which can never give rise to a legitimate expectation, so the residents could not rely in law upon the undertaking that had been given to them.
This is surely a controversial judgment. It cites but one decision as authority for this finding. Although there is no unanimity on the point, there is alternative authority that supports the argument that there is a substantive legitimate expectation, where such an undertaking is given, except if the undertaking is made in violation of a statute or when it is not in the public interest. Neither was the case in this dispute; hence there appears to be a significant injustice if people were removed from land where clear promises had been made to them.
But more problematic is the absence of any engagement as set out by the Constitutional Court. Though the Cape High Court found compliance with the Johannesburg City case, the residents asserted that no meaningful consultation had taken place. The applicants conceded that consultation had been limited. No evidence of such engagement was shown.
A unilateral decision was made to move the residents more then 37km, far from where their children went to school and where many were employed.
Of course a court must seek to balance the state's attempt to give effect to its constitutional obligation to provide housing with the rights of those who are homeless but whose actions may frustrate the housing programme. That will often prove to be a difficult balancing exercise, hence some sympathy for the judicial dilemma. But in this case the court manifestly glossed over the undertaking given to the residents and the legal implications of meaningful engagement before any removal could take place. It is this deference to developers and the diminution of the importance of consultation that makes this judgement so problematic.
This case must raise a debate about the meaning of legal transformation.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Zimbabwe Arms Shipped by China Spark an Uproar
A Chinese ship loaded with armaments for Zimbabwe steamed into the port of Durban this week (19 April 2008) and set off a political firefight, putting newfound pressure on South Africa — and now China — to reduce support for Zimbabwe’s government as it cracks down on its rivals after a disputed election.
Dock workers at the Durban port, backed by South Africa’s powerful unions, refused to unload the ammunition and weapons on Friday, vowing protests and threatening violence if the government tried to do it without them.
Source: New York Times
Dock workers at the Durban port, backed by South Africa’s powerful unions, refused to unload the ammunition and weapons on Friday, vowing protests and threatening violence if the government tried to do it without them.
Source: New York Times
Monday, April 14, 2008
UN Rights Council to Review South Africa
South Africa’s human rights record will be scrutinized on April 15, 2008 by the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva at a Universal Periodic Review Session that is likely to focus on abuses around HIV infections, sexual violence, and asylum procedures.
Under the review process, governments submit a written report and nongovernmental organizations are invited to comment on the human rights situation. But since South Africa did not submit its report until the eve of the session, and did not consult ahead of the session with South African civil society groups and international nongovernmental organizations, these groups were only able to present written concerns about a wide range of human rights issues to the council.
Among the topics of concern to Human Rights Watch are:
* The high incidence of sexual violence and the scale of HIV infection in South Africa. It is essential that health provision reform due in May 2008 ensure that all victims of sexual violence have prompt access to and information about post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to reduce the chance of contracting HIV.
* The 2007 Sexual Offences Act, which requires victims to either file criminal charges with the South African Police or report the alleged offence to a designated health establishment as a condition of receiving PEP. Human Rights Watch and other organizations have found that conditioning assistance on filing a police report may effectively prevent victims from receiving lifesaving PEP because many survivors are reluctant to file charges or because of police delays.
* Asylum procedures, which can be onerous. Asylum-seekers often face obstacles in filing asylum applications. With the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe, urgent reform is needed to ensure protection for Zimbabweans seeking refuge in South Africa.
Under the review process, governments submit a written report and nongovernmental organizations are invited to comment on the human rights situation. But since South Africa did not submit its report until the eve of the session, and did not consult ahead of the session with South African civil society groups and international nongovernmental organizations, these groups were only able to present written concerns about a wide range of human rights issues to the council.
Among the topics of concern to Human Rights Watch are:
* The high incidence of sexual violence and the scale of HIV infection in South Africa. It is essential that health provision reform due in May 2008 ensure that all victims of sexual violence have prompt access to and information about post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to reduce the chance of contracting HIV.
* The 2007 Sexual Offences Act, which requires victims to either file criminal charges with the South African Police or report the alleged offence to a designated health establishment as a condition of receiving PEP. Human Rights Watch and other organizations have found that conditioning assistance on filing a police report may effectively prevent victims from receiving lifesaving PEP because many survivors are reluctant to file charges or because of police delays.
* Asylum procedures, which can be onerous. Asylum-seekers often face obstacles in filing asylum applications. With the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe, urgent reform is needed to ensure protection for Zimbabweans seeking refuge in South Africa.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Zuma on crime: Shabangu has a point
Deputy Safety and Security Minister Susan Shabangu's controversial "shoot to kill" comment has received African National Congress (ANC) president Jacob Zuma's backing.
Speaking at the KwaZulu-Natal Institute of Local Government and Traditional Leadership's fund-raising gala dinner on Friday night, Zuma said: "If you have a deputy minister saying the kind of things that the deputy minister was saying, this is what we need to happen." Zuma pointed out that police had at one stage been "asked not to shoot at criminals". "Because the fact of the matter [is that] criminals shoot police. Instead of talking at that level, we ought to be seeing action that we are tougher on the criminals. That's the point I'm making. What the deputy minister was saying is what we are to be doing is dealing with the criminals rather than talking about it."
Shabangu, who was speaking at an anti-crime imbizo (meeting) in Pretoria West, was quoted by the Pretoria News as saying: ""You must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community. You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect." While her comments have sparked outrage among some and received the backing of others, the issue of crime has been raised repeatedly at several functions attended by the ANC president in Durban and Richards Bay during the past two days. "You know, if you haven't experienced crime, you can theorise about it, but for those that have experienced it, it is a painful thing," Zuma said. He said he had visited the Cape Flats and heard several horrendous crime stories. He added that many of those who felt strongly about crime had been victims themselves. Addressing the media, he said: "I'm hoping that when you write, [you] don't sensationalise what I said. Use the words that say exactly what I say. I just hope the clarity is as clear as I put it."
Earlier on Friday, Zuma had said that the issue of bail for those accused of rape and murder needed to be debated. "I don't think we have debated the issue. Let us do something that favours the victim and not the criminal." Asked if he was personally in favour of rape and murder accused being denied bail, Zuma said: "I'm not saying it's my personal view. I want to say that these things need to be looked at." Zuma cited a number of examples where members of the public had questioned him about criminals being released on bail. "I have not been able to give them answers. We over-stretch human rights sometimes," he said. He pointed out that once a murder had taken place, a person's right to life had already been infringed. "We need to look at the things we do that don't favour the victim." He also said it was an "open secret" that murderers released on bail often interfered with witnesses.
At the dinner, Zuma said he believed that education could play a major role in combating crime. If the country could tackle crime, health and education, many of its problems would be resolved. He suggested that remuneration in these three sectors needed to be addressed. "I don't think we should be afraid to pay for those services," he said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Speaking at the KwaZulu-Natal Institute of Local Government and Traditional Leadership's fund-raising gala dinner on Friday night, Zuma said: "If you have a deputy minister saying the kind of things that the deputy minister was saying, this is what we need to happen." Zuma pointed out that police had at one stage been "asked not to shoot at criminals". "Because the fact of the matter [is that] criminals shoot police. Instead of talking at that level, we ought to be seeing action that we are tougher on the criminals. That's the point I'm making. What the deputy minister was saying is what we are to be doing is dealing with the criminals rather than talking about it."
Shabangu, who was speaking at an anti-crime imbizo (meeting) in Pretoria West, was quoted by the Pretoria News as saying: ""You must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community. You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect." While her comments have sparked outrage among some and received the backing of others, the issue of crime has been raised repeatedly at several functions attended by the ANC president in Durban and Richards Bay during the past two days. "You know, if you haven't experienced crime, you can theorise about it, but for those that have experienced it, it is a painful thing," Zuma said. He said he had visited the Cape Flats and heard several horrendous crime stories. He added that many of those who felt strongly about crime had been victims themselves. Addressing the media, he said: "I'm hoping that when you write, [you] don't sensationalise what I said. Use the words that say exactly what I say. I just hope the clarity is as clear as I put it."
Earlier on Friday, Zuma had said that the issue of bail for those accused of rape and murder needed to be debated. "I don't think we have debated the issue. Let us do something that favours the victim and not the criminal." Asked if he was personally in favour of rape and murder accused being denied bail, Zuma said: "I'm not saying it's my personal view. I want to say that these things need to be looked at." Zuma cited a number of examples where members of the public had questioned him about criminals being released on bail. "I have not been able to give them answers. We over-stretch human rights sometimes," he said. He pointed out that once a murder had taken place, a person's right to life had already been infringed. "We need to look at the things we do that don't favour the victim." He also said it was an "open secret" that murderers released on bail often interfered with witnesses.
At the dinner, Zuma said he believed that education could play a major role in combating crime. If the country could tackle crime, health and education, many of its problems would be resolved. He suggested that remuneration in these three sectors needed to be addressed. "I don't think we should be afraid to pay for those services," he said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Kill the criminals, minister tells cops
Deputy Minister of Safety and Security Susan Shabangu told police that they should kill criminals if they threaten police or the community, the Star reported on Thursday. "You must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community. You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect," Shabangu said at an anti-crime imbizo in Pretoria West on Wednesday.
Shabangu, who received a standing ovation, was responding to questions on what police and the government are doing to curb crime. Residents of Danville, Pretoria West, Lotus Gardens, Hercules and Elandspoort complained about the "pathetic excuses" given by police allegedly unable or unwilling to deal with crime. "I want to assure the police station commissioners and policemen and women from these areas that they have permission to kill these criminals. "I won't tolerate any pathetic excuses for you not being able to deal with crime. You have been given guns, now use them." She added that there should be no warning shots. "I want no warning shots. You have one shot and it must be a kill shot. If you miss, the criminals will go for the kill. They don't miss. We can't take this chance. "Criminals are hell-bent on undermining the law and they must now be dealt with. If criminals dare to threaten the police or the livelihood or lives of innocent men, women and children, they must be killed. End of story. There are to be no negotiations with criminals."
She said law-abiding people and not the criminals must be protected. "I say that criminals must be made to pay for their crimes. The Constitution says criminals must be kept safe, but I say No!" she said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Shabangu, who received a standing ovation, was responding to questions on what police and the government are doing to curb crime. Residents of Danville, Pretoria West, Lotus Gardens, Hercules and Elandspoort complained about the "pathetic excuses" given by police allegedly unable or unwilling to deal with crime. "I want to assure the police station commissioners and policemen and women from these areas that they have permission to kill these criminals. "I won't tolerate any pathetic excuses for you not being able to deal with crime. You have been given guns, now use them." She added that there should be no warning shots. "I want no warning shots. You have one shot and it must be a kill shot. If you miss, the criminals will go for the kill. They don't miss. We can't take this chance. "Criminals are hell-bent on undermining the law and they must now be dealt with. If criminals dare to threaten the police or the livelihood or lives of innocent men, women and children, they must be killed. End of story. There are to be no negotiations with criminals."
She said law-abiding people and not the criminals must be protected. "I say that criminals must be made to pay for their crimes. The Constitution says criminals must be kept safe, but I say No!" she said.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Saturday, April 5, 2008
McCarthy resignation a mystery
The Presidency and Justice Ministry on Friday claimed to have no knowledge of Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy's attempts to resign.
They also claimed to knowing nothing about President Thabo Mbeki's reported refusal to accept the resignation letter. "There's no such thing," said presidential spokesperson Mukoni Ratshitanga. "Leonard McCarthy accounts to the minister of justice. The Department of Justice will deal with this matter."
Spokesperson for Justice Minister Brigitte Mabandla, Zolile Nqayi said he knew neither of a reported meeting between McCarthy and the Justice Ministry, nor of the resignation itself.
The Cape Times reported on Friday that Mbeki was apparently refusing to accept McCarthy's resignation letter, which was submitted this week. According to the article, the newspaper had "reliably learnt" that McCarthy met Deputy Justice Minister Johnny de Lange on Thursday to discuss the issue. The government, the National Prosecuting Authority and legal sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the meeting, as well as Mbeki's apparent reluctance to accept the resignation, the Cape Times reported.
Source: News 24
They also claimed to knowing nothing about President Thabo Mbeki's reported refusal to accept the resignation letter. "There's no such thing," said presidential spokesperson Mukoni Ratshitanga. "Leonard McCarthy accounts to the minister of justice. The Department of Justice will deal with this matter."
Spokesperson for Justice Minister Brigitte Mabandla, Zolile Nqayi said he knew neither of a reported meeting between McCarthy and the Justice Ministry, nor of the resignation itself.
The Cape Times reported on Friday that Mbeki was apparently refusing to accept McCarthy's resignation letter, which was submitted this week. According to the article, the newspaper had "reliably learnt" that McCarthy met Deputy Justice Minister Johnny de Lange on Thursday to discuss the issue. The government, the National Prosecuting Authority and legal sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the meeting, as well as Mbeki's apparent reluctance to accept the resignation, the Cape Times reported.
Source: News 24
Friday, April 4, 2008
FBI nabs Fidentia fugitive
One of the alleged masterminds in the Fidentia scandal was arrested by the FBI in the United States, the National Prosecuting Authority said on Tuesday. Spokesperson Tlali Tlali said Steven William Goodwin was arrested following a request by the Directorate of Special Operations, better known as the Scorpions.
According to the NPA, Goodwin was detained on Saturday at Los Angeles airport by US authorities and the Customs and Immigration Department. "Their intervention followed an alert issued by Interpol that Goodwin was en route to the US and that a warrant for his arrest had been issued in South Africa in July 2007. "Goodwin left South Africa for Australia in early February 2007, following the appointment of a curator to manage the Fidentia group of companies and before the Scorpions investigation was authorised in February 2007," said Tlali.
Goodwin was described as the "real founder" of Fidentia and has been named repeatedly in a draft indictment against Fidentia boss J Arthur Brown. He left South Africa just days before Brown was arrested in March last year. The draft charge sheet says that at the time Goodwin owned and was MD of a company named Worthytrade 185. Acting as a broker, he initiated the contact that resulted in the Transport Education Training Authority (Teta) entrusting promissory notes worth R100,3-million to Maddock Incorporated in April 2003.
The NPA has 60 days within which to apply for Goodwin's extradition and is preparing papers to launch such an application, said Tlali. "The Scorpions are currently working with the US Department of Justice to ensure the matter is resolved speedily and successfully. Once on South African soil, Goodwin will face charges of theft, fraud and corruption running into millions," he said. The charge sheet says Brown acted "in the execution of a common purpose" with Goodwin in providing a R6-million bribe to ensure that the Teta board made the investment with FAM. Goodwin is also named repeatedly in the section of the charge sheet that deals with money laundering.
Brown will go on trial in September on fraud and theft charges. He is out on R1-million bail.
The financial director of Fidentia, Graham Maddock, was effectively jailed for seven years on 54 counts involving fraud, theft, money laundering, contraventions of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act and the reckless or fraudulent conduct of business.
Source: Mail & Guardian
According to the NPA, Goodwin was detained on Saturday at Los Angeles airport by US authorities and the Customs and Immigration Department. "Their intervention followed an alert issued by Interpol that Goodwin was en route to the US and that a warrant for his arrest had been issued in South Africa in July 2007. "Goodwin left South Africa for Australia in early February 2007, following the appointment of a curator to manage the Fidentia group of companies and before the Scorpions investigation was authorised in February 2007," said Tlali.
Goodwin was described as the "real founder" of Fidentia and has been named repeatedly in a draft indictment against Fidentia boss J Arthur Brown. He left South Africa just days before Brown was arrested in March last year. The draft charge sheet says that at the time Goodwin owned and was MD of a company named Worthytrade 185. Acting as a broker, he initiated the contact that resulted in the Transport Education Training Authority (Teta) entrusting promissory notes worth R100,3-million to Maddock Incorporated in April 2003.
The NPA has 60 days within which to apply for Goodwin's extradition and is preparing papers to launch such an application, said Tlali. "The Scorpions are currently working with the US Department of Justice to ensure the matter is resolved speedily and successfully. Once on South African soil, Goodwin will face charges of theft, fraud and corruption running into millions," he said. The charge sheet says Brown acted "in the execution of a common purpose" with Goodwin in providing a R6-million bribe to ensure that the Teta board made the investment with FAM. Goodwin is also named repeatedly in the section of the charge sheet that deals with money laundering.
Brown will go on trial in September on fraud and theft charges. He is out on R1-million bail.
The financial director of Fidentia, Graham Maddock, was effectively jailed for seven years on 54 counts involving fraud, theft, money laundering, contraventions of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act and the reckless or fraudulent conduct of business.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)