How Seretse Walked Free From Corruption

| Monday August 4, 2014 17:34

 

The Judge’s remark right at the beginning of the case foreshadowed what was in store for the Prosecutor. “Your (Directorate of Public Prosecutions) attitude towards the case must change”, charged Justice Tshepo Motswagole as Ditodi looked at him with disbelief.

The Judge was riled by the fact that the State sought a postponement of the matter regarding the accused’s application to have the charges against him quashed. Apparently, the State had only prepared for the matter regarding the court order made in June requiring DPP to provide additional particulars to the accused.

The Judge said that the State had not responded as they should to the request of the accused to provide additional particulars on the charges. Said Motswagole, “The order was made in February to furnish further particulars and you did nothing.”

When the prosecutor responded to say the State had complied, the Judge answered, “Counsel I don’t want to hear that story”. The State was persistent that the new application be postponed because they were not adequately prepared for it.

Judge: “Don’t talk about compliance Counsel, you are asking for a postponement. Why should I postpone the hearing?”

Ditodi: “We are saying the particulars are sufficient my Lord, and they are saying they are not. We want to prove the information we have given them is sufficient. I don’t want to take a risk on justice and proceed with the matter when the other side is prepared and I am not.”

Judge: “You were served with heads of argument on July 28, and you did not respond. They are probably saying had you informed them in time Counsel would not have travelled all the way from South Africa.”

Ditodi: “We submit that we complied with all court orders my Lord. We pray that the matter be postponed so that we can adequately prepare for the application made by first accused.”

Judge: “You were directed to file by a particular date, you sat until the last day to serve particulars, then you were served with notice to quash the charges, then here we are today and you are seeking a postponement”.

Ultimately the Judge said since this was an important case he was prepared to grant postponement but the court would order the State to pay costs for the aborted case, to which Ditodi said if that is the case then he would ask for a short adjournment and then the matter could proceed.

Shortly after the case resumed the Judge and Ditodi locked horns again. This time it was over the issue regarding Seretse being a “referee” for Serala (Pty) Ltd, which the State said put him in a conflictual situation as BTC chief executive. The State argued that being a “referee” meant that Seretse had an interest in Serala and he did not disclose that at a meeting to discuss the tender in question.

Ditodi: By being a referee you are saying I will vouch for anything relating to Serala.

Judge: Even if he doesn’t know that he is listed as a referee?

Ditodi: That is the interest. He did not disclose that to the meeting. They are questioning issues of evidence My Lord.”

Judge: Counsel, what you needed to do was to show what as a referee he did to show that he has an interest in Serala. For instance you are now saying he vouched for Serala. Specific particulars were sort, the court ordered you to provide particulars. Just to say he was a referee it is not enough.

Ditodi: My Lord, that is a matter of evidence. We supplied sufficient particulars. We can’t mention everything in the charge sheet.

Judge: Counsel, I am trying to guide you as to what my concerns are and you are just ignoring me.”

Ditodi: Should we aver the nature of interest in the charge?”

Judge: Yes, you should because I ordered you to do so.

Ditodi: Our submission is that being referee establishes interest. If he was he is guilty of corruption. At this juncture we have directed the defence where the issue of referee emanates from.

Judge: Sir, that’s what you have done for them, not for me. The court had ordered that you aver to substantiate that referee in this context is offensive. I am unable to see how someone had a beneficial interest. Your answer does not show that being a referee amounts to having a beneficial interest.

Ditodi: We submit my Lord that we are reluctant to go into the evidence.

Judge: The Act says interest in the company.

Ditodi: Does the court mean that the charge sheet does not show that the Accused has interest in the company?

Judge: Exactly. What is it that he did as a referee?

Ditodi: My Lord I think we should agree to disagree.”