Nchindo trial set for April

ISAIAH MOREWAGAE
Staff Writer | Friday February 5, 2010 00:00

 

Nchindo and his co-accused persons Jacob Sesinyi, Joseph Matome, Garvas Nchindo face multiple counts of corruption in the case that is before Regional Magistrate (South) Lot Moroka. Multiple appeals that have been dragging, both at the High Court and Court of Appeal have delayed the commencement of the case.

The state prosecutor, Kgosietsile Ngakaagae assured the court that the state would abide by the Court of Appeal order and insure compliance by February 28th. Moroka then set March 1st as a mention date in which they will check on whether the CoA ruling has been complied by the state. Last week CoA ruled in favour of Nchindo and his co-accused.

They successfully challenged a decision by Village Chief Magistrate, Lot Moroka to turn down their request for further particulars on the charges they are facing. They argued that the denial for further particulars and documentation was going to deny them a fair trial.

The CoA agreed with the Nchindo defence team that the orders made by the magistrate precluded them from having a fair trial. He said that the state attorneys stated that they had furnished the accused persons with all relevant information in the over 1,000 documents furnished to the defence team. Judges further dismissed the prosecution's contention that the further particularity sought by the appellants was not sanctioned by any written law, or procedure and was untenable.

The appeal court emphasised the importance of fairness to the accused persons and their entitlement to further particulars in addition to the information contained in the charge sheet. They said that the accused persons were entitled to replies to certain of the further particulars they requested in order to prepare for their defence at the trial.

The court also gave the accused persons an opportunity to consult with state witnesses, Justice Newman and Nicolas Oppenheimer. He said the refusal to grant the accused persons this opportunity was unconstitutional. The prosecution was also ordered to furnish the accused persons with a list of the witnesses the state intends to call at trial.