Boeremag lawyers to stay

2004-04-06 13:08

Pretoria - A Pretoria High Court judge has dismissed an urgent application by the National Director of Public Prosecutions to force two of the defence advocates in the Boeremag treason trial to withdraw.

Judge Ben du Plessis said there was nothing more than allegations before the court that advocates Harry Prinsloo and Louisa van der Walt had acted unethically and that their further appearance in the trial would not be irregular.

The director launched the application after the next state witness, Lourens du Plessis, claimed the advocates had advised him to lie in a statement while they represented him in a criminal case involving counterfeit money and corruption.

Du Plessis was a co-accused in the Boeremag trial before he turned state witness. He claimed the counterfeit money was to have been used for an alleged coup plot by the Boeremag, but said Prinsloo and Van der Walt had advised him to deny any involvement in the alleged coup plot.

He claimed this was done to protect their other three clients, Michael and Andre du Toit and Rooikoos du Plessis. The advocates denied his allegations.

Advocates could testify

It was argued that it would be highly undesirable for the two advocates to cross-examine Du Plessis while they were in possession of information that was still privileged. The situation could also arise that the advocates would have to testify in the trial.

The court heard that it could take up to four years to conclude the trial and that the state intended calling "literally hundreds" of further witnesses after Du Plessis.

The judge found that the state witness could no longer rely on privilege, as he had already revealed what he had told to Prinsloo in consultation.

He said the mere fact that the advocates may have to testify in the trial did not make their further appearance for their clients irregular.

The judge pointed out that all accused had the right to be represented by properly admitted counsel. If the director wanted the court to interfere with that right, the correct remedy would be to ask a court to suspend or strike the legal practitioner from the roll.

- SAPA