Mdluli charges withdrawn 'to avoid spectacle'
2013-01-24 07:29
Video
2012-11-02 15:32
There is no evidence linking suspended crime intelligence boss Richard Mdluli to the murder of Oupa Ramogibe. Watch.WATCH
-
Articles on South African Law, Including: Culpable Homicide, Black Economic Empowerment, National Prosecuting Authority, South African Nationality Law, Law of South Africa, Government Gazette of South Africa, Central Case Management System
Articles on South African Law, Including: Culpable Homicide, National Prosecuting Authority,
Now R190.00
buy now
Pretoria - The provisional withdrawal of fraud charges
against former crime intelligence head Lieutenant General Richard Mdluli was
about avoiding a public spectacle, an NPA official said on Wednesday.
"We decided [advocate Chris] Smith would withdraw... in
order to avoid the unseemly spectacle that would have brought the NPA into
disrespect," said advocate Sibongile Mzinyathi at the disciplinary hearing
of colleague Glynnis Breytenbach.
Breytenbach was suspended last April.
The National Prosecuting Authority said it was because of
her handling of a criminal case by two mining companies involved in a rights
dispute - Imperial Crown Trading (ICT) and Kumba/Sishen.
But she claims it was to protect Mdluli and stop the
prosecution against him and a colleague, Colonel Hein Barnard.
Loopholes
Director of prosecutions and head of the Specialised
Commercial Crimes Unit (SCCU) Lawrence Mrwebi has already testified that he
felt the charges should be withdrawn because there were loopholes in the case.
The case belonged rather with the Inspector General of
Intelligence (IGI) and the auditor general, Mrwebi said.
Last week, he explained that he had a meeting with Mzinyathi
and Breytenbach, who had disagreed with him when he said the case should be
withdrawn and then reinstated, when the loopholes had been attended to.
After Mrwebi stepped down from his cross-examination on
Wednesday, Mzinyathi was sworn in to add clarity to what happened.
He was referred to a memorandum by Mrwebi dated 4 December 2011.
Mrwebi wrote that in terms of the NPA Act, and after
consultation with the director of prosecutions in Gauteng, he had decided that
the matter fell squarely with the IGI.
Mzinyathi said in his view this process was illegal and he
met Mrwebi on 5 December. Mrwebi advised him that he still needed to do further
research on how it should be handled from an intelligence aspect.
Mzinyathi left the meeting expecting to be told later what
Mrwebi's investigations had yielded.
He received the memorandum dated 4 December on either 6 or 8
December, but certainly after 4 December, saying the charges should be
withdrawn.
Mrwebi has previously testified that the date of 4 December
is a mistake and should have been 5 December.
Mzinyathi said he arranged a meeting with Mrwebi to discuss
this and the soonest they could meet was 9 December.
Prima facie case against Mdluli
During cross-questioning later it emerged that he had gone
with a Brigadier Van Graan to the IGI on 8 December and spoke to the IGI's
adviser Jay Govender, who told them that their mandate did not include the
investigation of crimes. It was the mandate of the police.
Back to Mzinyathi's testimony, he said that on 8 December,
he had sent an e-mail to Mrwebi, saying he felt there was a prima facie case
against Mdluli and his co-accused and that he did not find his way clear to the
matter being withdrawn.
He wrote that he hoped the decision had not been
communicated to Mdluli's lawyers "because such a communication may have to
be altered".
Then, at the meeting on 9 December, Mrwebi responded to Mzinyathi's
e-mail of the previous day by saying there had been allegations in the
intelligence environment and a complaint emanating from them, that needed to be
handled by the office of the IGI.
He said the investigation might require classified documents
that the police did not have access to.
Earlier on Wednesday, Mrwebi told the hearing as further
context to his decision to withdraw, he had been visited by two legal counsel
from the intelligence department who had alleged that a "prosecutor
Y" had been threatening people to do as he says and this formed part of
his decision that intelligence should get involved with the investigation.
He would not say who his confidential sources were.
Mzinyathi continued his testimony of the 9 December meeting
by saying that Mrwebi said he had told Mdluli's lawyers that charges would be
withdrawn and the only thing he could do was to ask the National Director of
Public Prosecutions (NDPP) to reverse his decision.
Instructions
Advocate Smith, who was prosecuting the matter in court, had
already been instructed to withdraw the charges and Mrwebi was not prepared to
give Smith different instructions.
It would put him in a difficult position in terms of getting
opposing instructions from his seniors.
The decision was then taken that Smith would withdraw the
charges to avoid a public spectacle.
Although they had different views on the case, "We
accepted that the case on the 14th will be withdrawn," said Mzinyathi.
His understanding was then that the office of the IGI would
be involved and that depending on what further investigation yielded, the
matter would be re-enrolled.
The hearing was told that when Mzinyathi and Mrwebi met he
was told that the actual decision to withdraw was made.
Trengove asked Mzinyathi if he knew that he sent Mrwebi sent
a letter, also dated 4 December, to Mdluli's lawyers at the same time as he
sent a letter to Mzinyathi, communicating the decision.
"I did not know that," he said.
He agreed with a submission by Breytenbach's counsel that
the prosecuting team believed that only one more postponement would be required
and they would be ready to go to trial.
Breytenbach's conduct
As the hearing continued, Mzinyathi said that by
coincidence, at the same time, 5 December, he was called to a meeting with then
NDPP Menzi Simelane and the deputy NDPP Silas Ramaite and given two lever arch
files relating to a complaint laid by ICT lawyer Ronald Mendelow, relating to
Breytenbach's conduct while investigating the mining case.
He was asked to handle the matter and keep them informed of
developments.
He regarded the allegations against her - which included
that she was involved in getting an advocate to influence a witness - as
serious.
He then handed this to Mrwebi, as he felt he should know
about it, as it involved a direct subordinate - Breytenbach is a regional head
of the SCCU and a director of prosecutions.
The hearing ended with Trengove reading off a note passed to
him by Breytenbach, and he asked Mzinyathi if on 1 April last year she and a
colleague Jan Ferreira took a memorandum to Mzinyathi asking for a review of
Mrwebi's decision.
"You said to her 'you can do this if you want to, but
they are going to kill you'."
"I never said that," said Mzinyathi.
The hearing continues on Thursday.
- SAPA