I won’t wait for Seretse —Ndzinge
Spira Tlhankane | Monday August 31, 2026 06:00
Ndzinge, Seretse, Sharifa Noor, Kgori Capital (Pty) Ltd and Kgori Holdings (Pty) Ltd are jointly facing a 63-count indictment that includes charges of stealing by an agent, forgery of an official document, conspiracy to defraud and money laundering. In an application for separation of trial, filed before the court, Ndzinge is asking that proceedings against him continue even if Seretse and the other accused succeed in obtaining a stay pending an appeal. Ndzinge says he is being dragged into a potentially lengthy legal limbo by interlocutory battles being fought by his co-accused. He indicated that the battles have nothing to do with his defence. At the heart of his application is a blunt warning that if the entire case is halted pending the High Court proceedings, it could take 12 to 18 months or longer before the criminal trial gets moving.
For Ndzinge, that will be too long to wait since the alleged offences date back to 2017 and 2018, meaning some of the events at the centre of the prosecution are already more than nine years old. The criminal proceedings relate to the long-running NPF investigation, which centres on allegations involving millions of pula that were allegedly misappropriated from government funds. According to the charge sheet, the five accused are alleged to have committed offences involving approximately P62.7 million linked to transactions involving the NPF.
The charges include stealing by an agent, forgery, conspiracy to defraud and multiple counts of money laundering. The latest prosecution follows the return of the NPF case after earlier proceedings involving a larger group of accused persons were dismissed. The current case involves only Seretse, Noor, Ndzinge and their two companies. The State alleges that the accused fraudulently diverted money entrusted to them under the NPF and later moved the proceeds through various bank accounts, which forms the basis of the money laundering charges. And despite the size of the charge sheet, none of the accused has yet entered a plea. Ndzinge argues he has watched the case become bogged down in procedural battles since his first appearance in March this year. He pointed out that he now wants his own courtroom clock to start ticking. “I have been accused, and I merely wish to face my accuser in a court of law,” Ndzinge states in his founding affidavit. His application places the blame for the delay squarely on litigation initiated by Seretse, who previously challenged the authority of prosecutor Thabo Malambane to prosecute the case, an application that was dismissed by the court. In a ruling delivered on June 30, 2026, Magistrate Mareledi Dipate found that the prosecution team had the legal authority to conduct the case and dismissed the defence application, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.
According to Ndzinge, the ruling was delivered on June 30, after which he was ready to move towards plea and trial. But the other accused indicated that they needed to take further instructions. The situation escalated when Seretse’s lawyers subsequently filed an application for leave to appeal the June ruling. Ndzinge says that application seeks, amongst other things, a stay of the entire proceedings pending the determination of the appeal. That is where Ndzinge says his patience runs out and insists he is not part of Seretse’s appeal and did not author nor confirm any affidavit supporting it. More importantly, he says Seretse’s challenge does not advance any defence available to him. “I do not actively oppose the leave application in the sense that, as an individual charged in my own right, I cannot interfere with how a co-accused conducts his or her case,” Ndzinge told the court. “For the avoidance of doubt, I take no part in this Leave to Appeal application, I did not author or confirm any affidavit in support of it, and I do not consent to any stay of proceedings against me arising from it. Any stay granted in the absence of my motivation or that of the State would be an affront to my rights, inclusive of how I conduct my case.” Ndzinge added that the first accused's challenge to the prosecutor's authority to prosecute does not advance any defence available to him. “It is a challenge to process, not to the substance of the charges against me.
The delay caused by this collateral litigation has no benefit to my defense and causes me material prejudice.” He argues that allowing the litigation of his co-accused to freeze his own case would unfairly prejudice him. The passage of time is central to Ndzinge’s application as the charges allege offences committed as far back as May 2017, while the amended charge sheet contains 63 counts. He faces Counts 1 and 2, relating to alleged stealing by an agent; Count 4, relating to alleged conspiracy to defraud; and Counts 5 to 63, which comprise 59 money-laundering counts. Ndzinge, however, is not charged on Count 3, the forgery count which is directed at Seretse and Sharifa Noor. Ndzinge says this distinction is important because there is evidence in the case that does not concern him at all. He therefore wants his case separated from the others so that he can face the allegations specifically brought against him. His lawyers argue that continued joinder means he could remain stuck in the same legal traffic jam as accused persons pursuing challenges in which he has no interest. Ndzinge also warns that witnesses’ memories inevitably deteriorate with time.
“Since my first appearance, I have been unable to have my plea taken or my trial commenced due exclusively to interlocutory applications brought by the first accused, in which I have no interest and from which I derive no benefit,” he says. “The prejudice occasioned by this passage of time is not static but compounds with every further delay: the ability of witnesses, including those whose evidence may exonerate me, to accurately recall events from more than nine years ago naturally diminishes with time, and I am advised and verily believe that this erosion of recollection has already begun. “Each additional day of delay makes it correspondingly more difficult to preserve and rely upon whatever accurate recollection remains, and it is that remaining recollection that I seek to salvage by having my trial proceed without further delay.” Ndzinge says the damage is not confined to the courtroom but also tells the court that he is employed and holds a position regulated by the Non-Bank Financial Institutions Regulatory Authority, where he is required to remain a fit and proper person. He says the unresolved criminal proceedings have affected his professional standing and reputation.
“The unresolved and prolonged nature of these Proceedings also impacts my business activities more generally. “I am unable to freely and confidently engage in the corporate and business community while these charges remain pending against me, and this constrains opportunities that would otherwise be available to me, including prospective directorships, business partnerships, and new business ventures,” Ndzinge added. The application also reveals that this is not Ndzinge’s first brush with criminal proceedings arising from the NPF saga.
He revealed that related charges against him were withdrawn by the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in March 2020. Ndzinge says that history has added to the strain of finding himself once again facing criminal proceedings arising from the same underlying matters. According to the applicant, his family has also been caught in the prolonged legal drama. “My father, brother, and sister have consistently attended every court appearance in this matter to support me, and the continued and indefinite delay occasioned by my co-accused’s interlocutory applications correspondingly prolongs the burden placed on my family,” he highlighted. His proposed order asks that his plea, case management and trial proceed on dates to be fixed by the court, regardless of any pending application for leave to appeal, appeal or stay brought by his co-accused.