BCM fraud accused challenge arrests
Six tackle magistrate over reasons for warrants
LAWYERS representing six Buffalo City Metro fraud accused are heading to the high court to compel an East London chief magistrate to give reasons why she authorised warrants for their arrests.
The court action, the lawyers said, comes after they discovered that three magistrates had refused to sign the warrants of arrest prior to the chief magistrate being approached.
The Dispatch has seen a letter drafted by legal representatives of BCM’s chief financial officer Vincent Pillay, supply chain manager Thembelani Sali, head of executive support services Ncumisa Sidukwana, councillor Luleka Simon-Ndzele, the city’s lawyer, Matthew Moodley and former mayor Zukiswa Ncitha dated June 13.
In their letter addressed to chief magistrate Valerie Gqiba the lawyers said: “We hold instructions to approach the high court for the review of the warrants you issued for the arrest of our clients.”
The six accused were arrested in March allegedly for fraud and contravening the Municipal Finance Management Act.
“We are informed that the prosecutor in the matter, advocate Diniso Ketani, approached several magistrates in your establishment for the warrants of arrests to be authorised pursuant to the affidavit that was disposed by Warrant Officer Orie Qhato Sonkosi,” the letter read.
“We are instructed to ask you to confirm whether indeed the prosecutor in the matter in company of [Hawks] Captain [Luphumlo] Lwana approached magistrate [Fanie] Stander, [Merwin] Meyer and [Nazeem] Joemath before the same affidavit served before you on the day who one after the other refused to authorise the warrants.
“If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, please provide the basis for you to overrule your brothers,” read the letter, adding “failing which, application will be launched to the high court for you to submit the required information with the suitable costs”.
In response to the letter, last Wednesday, state attorney in East London Thobeka Dlanjwa said: “We hold instructions to advise that our client, authorised the warrant after satisfying herself that the requirements for the issue of a warrant had been complied within in accordance with the exercise of her judicial functions and without any influence.”
Advocate Mike Maseti, who is part of the legal representatives, told the Dispatch the response from the state attorney’s office was “unsatisfactory”.
“We are drawing up legal papers – we have no option but to go to the high court,” Maseti said.
The fraud case has been postponed to July 24 for a regional court date.