Ex-Scorpions director vindicated

MORE than 11 years after he was arrested on fraud and theft charges, former investigating director of the then Scorpions Malala Geophrey (Geoph) Ledwaba has been vindicated.

Ledwaba, a former advocate, was in October 2006 arrested alongside Ayanda Dlodlo, now Minister of Home Affairs, when she was a special director in the Directorate of Special Operations.

The charges followed allegations that Ledwaba was involved in fraud and theft of money from the Scorpions’ confidential fund, earmarked to pay for special operations and for informants.

The theft charge brought against Dlodlo was withdrawn at the time, but Ledwaba had to face 15 charges in the Specialised Commercial Crimes Court in Pretoria.

In 2014, he was convicted on two fraud and three theft charges, and the following year sentenced to an effective 10-year jail term.

Ledwaba was adamant from the start that the charges were trumped up and vowed to prove his innocence.

His first attempt to appeal his convictions and sentence failed. He petitioned for leave to appeal, which was later granted. Ledwaba remained out of jail pending the outcome of his appeal.

Two Johannesburg judges, sitting in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, eventually upheld his appeal.

But it was a struggle for Ledwaba, whose name was struck from the role of advocates after his conviction in 2014. “I asked the General Council of the Bar to hold off with this until the outcome of the appeal as I was confident I would be vindicated, but they refused.”

Judge Zeenat Carelse, who wrote the judgment in which the appeal was upheld, found that Ledwaba never had a fair trial. She had some scathing words for the officers of the State who prosecuted him at the time.

Carelse said the State had provided no reasonable explanation for its failure to call relevant witnesses during his criminal trial.

“There is a constitutional duty on the State to place the truth before the court, whether it is in their favour or not,” she said.

“There is a basic duty on the State to produce its evidence in a truthful, unbiased manner… on consideration of the State’s failure to present relevant evidence to the court, or to call relevant witnesses, the fairness of the trial must be called into question. This failure resulted in an unfair trial.”

But on appeal, the State for the first time conceded that it had failed to prove the charge of fraud and theft.