Boeremag case told of conflict

2003-03-27 16:16

Pretoria - An alleged Boeremag member claimed in the High Court here on Thursday his previous lawyer's efforts to protect a co-accused had resulted in him failing to get bail.

Pretoria businessman Adriaan Jacobus van Wyk is to stand trial, along with 22 other men, on charges of treason, sabotage and terrorism from May 19.

Pretoria regional court turned down his bail application in August last year, shortly after his arrest. The High Court denied Van Wyk's appeal against the ruling.

On Thursday, he asked Judge Ronnie Bosielo for another chance to apply for bail.

Herman Barnard for Van Wyk said the main ground on which bail was refused was because his client's name appeared in Document 12 - which sets out plans to overthrow the government.

Barnard said Louisa van der Walt, who previously represented Van Wyk, did not use an affidavit by State witness Jacobus Holtzhausen - which could have helped his client - in the bail application.

This was because it incriminated Michael du Toit, a co-accused represented by Van der Walt's husband, Harry Prinsloo.

According to Barnard, she misled Van Wyk not to give evidence in the bail application.

'Might incriminate other clients'

He was apparently told that only an affidavit would be submitted to the court on his behalf, because "one does not want to tell the State too much before the trial".

Barnard said: "His legal representatives were afraid that what he might say under oath could incriminate their other clients."

The affidavit was given to Van Wyk in court just before the start of the bail application, and he was told to sign it, without having had the time to read it.

Dries van Rensburg, for the director of public prosecutions, pointed out that Van der Walt, in an affidavit, claimed she had on several occasions asked Van Wyk to explain why his name appeared in Document 12.

He could not explain that, she said.

She said Van Wyk had had his own copy of the docket, including Holtzhausen's affidavit, since October. He had never before insisted that it be used in his defence.

Van Rensburg said: "What the applicant wants is a second bite of the cherry.

"There are no irregularities in this case. (Van Wyk) tries to impress on the court that Mrs van der Walt, an experienced advocate, has not consulted him at all... Where, then, did she get the information for his affidavit?"

Van der Walt said in her affidavit that she had explained Van Wyk's rights to him about testifying, and what negative consequences that could have.

"There is absolutely no substance to the claim that she did not represent him properly," said Van Rensburg.

There was nothing prohibiting Van der Walt from representing Van Wyk while her husband appeared for Du Toit.

Van Rensburg also asked why Van Wyk had not raised his objections earlier.

"An applicant, who has run out of remedies, can't just come and ask the court for a second chance," Van Rensburg said.

Bosielo is due to give judgment on Friday.

- SAPA