Goolam was mastermind - Mhlauli
GIDEON NKALA
Staff Writer
| Tuesday November 20, 2007 00:00
Abdullah Goolam as the mastermind, who not only financed and fabricated the case to wrest away the Riverwalk plot that was allocated to Eddie Norman, but helped to conjure up a case that crumbled before the High Court.
Giving his evidence in chief, Mhlauli said it was never his intention to use any means, illegal or otherwise, to get away the land that was allocated to Eddie Norman.
He said he was invited to the scheme and he eventually participated in a plan whose intention was to wrest away land from Norman. Ironically, this directly contradicts the evidence that was led by Oremeng, who told court that it was Mhlauli who invited him into the scheme.
In court yesterday, Mhlauli told court that around Septmber 2000, when he had retired as permanent secretary, he happened to be going to Middle Star mall where he was going to get some medication from a Pharmacy, whereupon he was called by Kadimo Oremeng and one Cheks Lekalake to join them.
'There were playing a game of cards in Mr. Oremeng's yard. I went in to buy my medication and then joined them as I had been called, 'he said.
It was at this meeting, Mhlauli told court, that he was introduced to a plan by Oremeng to pressurise Norman into a joint venture. If he proved difficult, an alternative plan to launch a false case would be set afoot.
Mhlauli said Oremeng told him that Goolam had property at the old Game Store and he wanted to expand it by getting more land in the area and this was the same land that had been allocated to Norman.
He said Goolam wanted Oremeng to do his bidding so that the land would eventually end up in Goolam's hands.
He said he was enticed by this proposal and he asked Oremeng what he stood to gain if he became part of the group and he was assured that Goolam would accommodate him in the business as an investor.
'I was sold to the idea but I asked for more time,' Mhlauli said.
At this time Mhlauli said he had not met Goolam and he did not even know where his offices were but Oremeng knew and led him there. Subsequently he met with Goolam and he said Goolam was receptive to his idea of accommodating him in his venture should the land end up under his control.
At one of the meetings, Goolam informed them that he would pay for the cost of the case, and according to Mhlauli, Goolam had actually paid two P15, 000 installments to Monthe Marumo Attorneys for the fabricated case that was launched against Norman.
When the case was lost, Goolam allegedly disbursed P20, 000 as part payment towards the cost awarded to Norman.
Asked whether he had at any point threatened Oremeng he denied ever doing so but said he knew that Oremeng was threatened.
He said Goolam threatened Oremeng. He said at one of their meetings Goolam said Oremeng should never reveal that Goolam was part of the plan to go to court on a false claim and that he was financing the case.
According to Mhlauli, Goolam made it clear that should Oremeng spill the beans he would kill him. He said Goolam put four fingers of his hand and moved them across his neck thus making a clear signal which meant that he would kill him.
On other matters, Mhlauli denied the evidence that was led in court by Eddie Norman that he Mhlauli had telephoned Norman asking him to give him something because he had assisted him to get a plot at Riverwalk. In denial Mhlauli said in the telephone call he just asked Norman if he had an opportunity to accommodate him as an investor.
Mhlauli said he asked Norman because he knew he had the property and that the plot was not developed. In addition he said he had received about half a million as part of lump sum payment of his gratuity when he retired from government and he needed to invest the money and other savings that he had. On his evidence relating to the charge of abuse of office, Mhlauli said he did not abuse his office and he insisted that given the same circumstances he would take the same decision of awarding the Riverwalk plot to Norman even today.
He said it was not true that he disadvantaged Oremeng by causing the award of the plot to go to Norman.
He agreed that the decision to award the Riverwalk plot to Norman was taken by him but this was not arbitrary, but based on the information and advice that he got from officials, principally, Milidzani Majino of the Department of Lands. He said he might have appeared to push land officers but he was under pressure to address the public outcry about the delay in the allocation of commercial land.
And further, Minister Nasha had caused him to ensure that Norman's complaints that he was being overlooked should be addressed. Mhlauli said it was not correct that Oremeng should have been given the Riverwalk plot because he had applied earlier than Norman.
'The principle of 'first come, first serve' did not apply on unzoned and unserviced land,' he said.
Mhlauli's other charge is that he knowingly gave false information to a commissioner of oaths when the cooked-up High Court case was launched against Norman. In his evidence, he denied that the commissioner of oaths made them swear that the evidence that he will give will be true and to ask God to help them.
He said they did not go through 'this rigmarole'. He said he was asked if he knew the contents and he replied 'yes' and the commissioner of oaths asked him to sign. 'While I was signing the documents the telephone rang and she spoke on the phone and after she finished with the call she signed the papers and stamped them. She then gave them back to me,' Mhlauli confirmed.
In the earlier part of the trial, during cross-examination there was a tussle between Attorney, Pepsi Smakallo-Thuto and advocate Francois Van Zyl for the defence about whether the oath was administered.
At that point, it appeared the contention of the defence was that if the accused had not taken an oath the papers they signed could not be called an affidavit.
In fact, Advocate Van Zyl referred to the papers as confirmatory statements, rather than affidavits.
As one joked after the case, it was a matter of whether they asked God to help them or not. The case adjourned yesterday to allow the state to prepare for cross-examination, which is set to begin today.