Mandela accused take back recusal application
Applicants reserve right to restore it at later stage of trial
LAWYERS representing several politicians and powerful business people implicated in the Nelson Mandela funeral fraud scandal yesterday withdrew their recusal application against a magistrate set to preside over the case.
No explanation was given in court for the sudden decision announced by defence attorney advocate Mike Maseti, only that “we reserve the right to bring the application at a later stage”.
Maseti is one of seven high-profile East London lawyers representing suspended ANC Dr WB Rubusana regional secretary Pumlani Mkolo, former Buffalo City Metro mayor Zukiswa Ncitha, her former deputy Temba Tinta, former council speaker Luleka Simoncouncillor Sindiswa Gomba, senior BCM official Ondela Mahlangu, Viwe Vazi, Dean Fanoe, Zintle Nkuhlu and Nosiphiwo Mati.
They face charges relating to misuse of millions of rands earmarked for the late statesman’s memorial services and funeral in December 2013.
On July 6, East London regional magistrate Sadia Jacobs was told by lawyers representing the accused that an application for her recusal would be brought yesterday.
Jacobs has been presiding over the matter since 2015 but the defence believed they would not receive a fair hearing from her.
The lawyers raised this argument following a judgment by the Grahamstown High Court three months ago that set aside Jacobs’ 2015 decision that the charge sheet contained enough information for them to plead and plan their defence.
The high court ordered the state to refine the charge sheet and provide enough details so that the accused knew precisely what case they must answer to.
The defence argued that the charge sheet was particularly inadequate on allegations that the accused acted with common purpose.
Yesterday Maseti again raised his dissatisfaction with the charge sheet, and also with the way state prosecuting advocate Diniso Ketani was conducting the case, complaining that he was going behind the defence’s back.
“There are documents which we are not privy to and we do not know if we need copies for our benefit.
“That information is crucial,” Maseti said. Jacobs responded: “Surely you are entitled to that information. You can put it in writing.”
Maseti said the court needed to hear other defence attorneys rise up and vent their frustration with the state.
Jacobs shot him down, saying yesterday was scheduled to deal only with the recusal application.
“The other issues will be dealt with at the pretrial conference to be held on October 3,” Jacobs said.
She then adjourned the court for 30 minutes to allow the lawyers to meet and discuss a way forward.
After the meeting, the lawyers, through Maseti, announced: “We have resolved as follows:
“At this stage we will withdraw the recusal application. However, we reserve the right to bring it at a later stage.”
The case was postponed to October 3 for the pretrial conference.