INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS
Businessman Gaston Savoi, the main accused in the R144 million Amigos trial, says SA’s racketeering laws are open to personal and political manipulation.
Durban – Businessman Gaston Savoi, the main accused in the R144 million “Amigos” trial, says the racketeering laws are open to “personal and political manipulation” – and he cites as evidence the withdrawal of charges against his former co-accused, ANC politicians Mike Mabuyakhulu and Peggy Nkonyeni.
Savoi says he has asked KwaZulu-Natal acting director of public prosecutions, advocate Moipane Noko, for “detailed reasons” for the withdrawal of charges, but “these requests have been refused”.
He argues the evidence in the matter has not changed. The only change was “in the personnel in the office of the director of public prosecutions”.
This, he says, is proof the vagueness of the organised crime-combating legislation allows for “criminal law enforcement to be selectively applied and motivated by the personal predilections of the police and prosecutors”.
Savoi, along with 12 others, is still to stand trial on racketeering, corruption and fraud charges relating to the supply of water purification and oxygen plants to the KwaZulu-Natal departments of local government and health. He has launched a pre-trial challenge to the Prevention of Organised Crime Act with a view to having provisions declared unconstitutional, which could affect all racketeering trials.
He launched the application before October last year when charges against economic development MEC Mabuyakhulu, provincial legislature Speaker Nkonyeni and eight others were withdrawn.
At the time, Noko – who had only been in office for two weeks – said there was insufficient evidence to proceed against the politicians.
Savoi then filed a further affidavit in his constitutional challenge saying that these events proved his point – that he was being arbitrarily targeted and the law was susceptible to manipulation.
He said in the old indictment Nkonyeni had been accused of “forming” and “managing the enterprise” with five related offences of fraud and money laundering.
“She was clearly a key figure… one of only four people who were alleged to be founders and managers. Assuming, as we must, that the decision (by Noko) is correct and there is inadequate evidence to sustain these charges, the question arises how she was ever charged.
“Significantly, no further investigation or evidence has provided any remarkable revelation to cause the sudden change in attitude,” he says.
“The evidence, as it stands, is identical to the evidence when she was charged as accused number four in the old indictment.
“The only change is in the personnel of the national director of public prosecutions,” he said, referring to the fact that the decision to charge her had been made by a previous acting head in the province.
Similarly, Mabuyakhulu had been charged with “participating in the conduct of an enterprise” and with four counts of fraud and corruption mainly related to an alleged R1 million “bribe” given to him and former Treasury head Sipho Shabalala.
Savoi said the new indictment contained the identical charges, but Mabuyakhulu “does not feature at all”.
“Nothing has changed except the over-broad legislation has lent itself to two entirely conflicting decisions by the same authority,” he said.
In contrast, Fernando Praderi, who works for his Intaka Holdings, has been charged with more offences and his role in the “enterprise” dramatically escalated to that of manager.
In his affidavit, the acting deputy director-general in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, Lawrence Basset, referred for the first time to “new evidence” coming to light.
“The new indictment is simply a reflection of the prosecution’s framing of the case in light of the evidence available to it,” he said.
“Should further evidence become available, that would provide a prima facie case against Ms Nkonyeni and Mr Mabuyakhulu, they will then be charged.”
But Savoi, in his final affidavit, said no one had yet explained how an indictment had changed from one with 23 accused and 54 counts to one with only 11 accused and 17 counts.
“The only explanation is that there was not a sufficiently strong case to proceed. No indication is given of what evidence was received, why the reassessment took place at all, or at the time it did,” he said.
The matter has been set down for argument in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Tuesday.
Whatever the outcome, it will ultimately be sent to the Constitutional Court.
tania.broughton@inl.co.za
The Mercury
