Porritt’s ‘indigence’ disputed

2009-10-08 00:00

THE chief executive officer of Legal Aid South Africa has rejected claims by businessman Gary Porritt and his former assistant, Susan Bennett, that they cannot expect to receive “quality” legal services from the state in their complex R700 million fraud trial.

Vidhu Vedalankar, however, also points out that Legal Aid SA remains unconvinced that Porritt and Bennett ought to qualify for legal aid and is appealing the ruling of the trial court in that regard, as well as the ruling concerning the “number and type” of counsel to be appointed to represent them.

However, in the interim, Vedalankar said, Legal Aid SA will provide competent legal representation to Porritt and Bennett.

“All advocates have extensive criminal law experience, with three of the four advocates appointed having more than 25 years’ experience each and one of them also having specialist commercial law experience... we are shocked that the accused find fault with them.” 

She said it is up to the accused to decide whether to accept legal aid.

Porritt and Bennet are accused of defrauding thousands of people arising from the collapse of the JSE-listed Tigon/Shawcell Group.

Vedalankar said it is “unfortunate” that the pair chose to attack Legal Aid SA “to serve their own self-interest”.

She said it is noteworthy that the Constitution is committed to human rights, which has made it possible for the accused to be afforded a fair trial through state-subsidised legal assistance (if they cannot afford to pay for their own defence).

Vedalankar said that in the 2008/2009 financial year alone, 435 000 people in South Africa benefited from legal aid.

She added it is on record that Legal Aid SA had argued before the court hearing Porritt and Bennett’s application for legal aid that their lifestyle is “at a level” where they should be able to afford the cost of their trial.

“These are accused who fly to court, use cellphones and complain about Legal Aid South Africa faxing a document to their Johannesburg office when they would have preferred to receive the document at their residential faxes,” said Vedalankar.

She said the trial judge was asked to request a full disclosure of assets from Porritt and Bennett, including their interest in various properties, companies and trusts.

“The responses, evasive and minimalist as they were, pointed to a lifestyle that was certainly not consistent with being indigent. Unfortunately the court did not oblige the accused to provide detailed proper answers to the questions put to them. They have already spent R23 million on their own defence.” 


Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.