Home » News » General » Court advised to quash NPF charges

Court advised to quash NPF charges

Publishing Date : 10 June, 2019

Author : GOITSEONE SEVEN

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) yesterday (Friday) continued to blunder in the P230 million National Petroleum scandal as they failed to convince the court why the charge should be amended and why the magistrate should commit the case to the High Court.


During their last mention Broadhurst Regional Magistrate Masilo Mathaka had ordered that in their next mention both the State and the defense attorneys were to argue the two matters. The State sought to move an application to amend the charge sheet, add more accused persons and commit them to the High Court whereas the defense attorneys want the charges against their clients thrown out. In his heads of argument, defense attorney Kgosi Ngakaagae argued that they submitted for the charges against their clients to be quashed stressing that they would not accept amendment of the charge sheet.


Ngakaagae stated that on the 31st May they received a supplementary request from the State prosecutors. “There is nothing that warrants its introduction, no consultation with the defense. The State should know that the purported supplementary affidavit in fact is a void document. Today we do not come to discuss any supplementary response,” he said. Ngakaagae argued that the defense and its clients have had enough of the State amending its charge sheet in every mention.


“My clients have been appearing before this court since 2017 and we on charge number five in a space of one and a half years,” he contended. The exasperated Ngakaagae argued that his clients have on several occasions denied by the State to take a plea. “The first appearance was a one count charge sheet on money laundering. We asked to plead, the State refused. Second was an amended Zimbabwean charge sheet for money laundering, the State still denied my clients to take a plea. We cried to this court that we be prosecuted but they resisted.”


He further stressed: “Then came a Botswana charge sheet (65 counts in total), we came before this court, we asked to plead. We did not resist despite increase and departure of the first charge sheet. Charge number four, 164 counts came now an esteemed and learned friend Abrahams [Shaun] now a South African charge sheet.” Ngakaagae told the court that the continuous change of prosecutors in this matter has delayed the case even further. He argued that each counsel brings their own charge and brings their own narrative.


“There should be an end to this. This matter has ceased to be about law but about counsels and what they prefer. Between now and then things have changed, the question is should an accused person be chasing after changing charges all the time?”
The defense attorneys stated that their clients have therefore made a decision to have the matter quashed.


“Our respectful submission in this case may be thrown out, and my clients be acquitted of the charges. In all their papers the state has failed to explain why they refused to give us further particularities and they have yet to explain why they did that in contempt of the court. The confiscation offense is not stated. How is the accused to know what the confiscation charge means if they are not told. Unoda Mack, who forms part of the defense attorneys also shared Ngakaagae’s sentiments.


“We submit that the state failed to provide answers and proper documents. They may say they have delivered eight files, but I doubt they are before the court. Our request for further particularities was based on the question, how was the money transacted? And the only response we got from the state was we do not know. Therefore the entire charge sheet should be quashed accordingly,” Mack also submitted. When he took the stand, State advocate Shaun Abrahams described to the court that the case has not been easy.


“This was not an easy investigation. It was a difficult and long one by the DCEC. More charges were bound to increase with time, you uncover new things,” he said. In his heads of arguments, Abrahams argued that there is a list of witnesses that the prosecution intents to call, pleading with the court to dismiss the motion to have the case quashed. “The matter has advanced to a stage where we are ready to commit the accused to the High Court,” he argued.  


State Prosecutor Ernest Mosate of the Directorate of the directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP) also argued that the magistrate should have in mind what the effects of quashing the charges are and what purpose will be achieved from quashing these charges.  “The court must balance the interests of both parties. We want this matter to proceed. We are ready for trial. Therefore we submit that may the application to quash the charges be dismissed.”  


He was however interrupted by magistrate Mathaka who lashed that the state cannot say they are ready for trial when they keep on amending their charge sheet every mention. “Where is the readiness there? You are never ready, today you are here tomorrow you are there. Your charges keep on giving birth to other charges,” the magistrate said.


Ngakaagae dismissed the state’s argument: “If you are not ready go back, and try get your house in order. You’ve never been ready that is why they denied my clients to take the plea. Theirs is a dead case and that is the sad reality with no escape. This case belongs to the archives.” The ruling will be delivered on the 18th July 2019.

Cartoon

Polls

Do you think the courts will help put the UDC, BMD impasse within reasonable time ahead of the 2019 General Election?

banner_14.jpg
banner_12.jpg

POPULER BRANDS