More irregularities in gem case
MORE irregularities have emerged in the multimillion-rand Project Darling Illicit Diamond Buying (IDB) case, currently being heard in the Northern Cape High Court, after it emerged that correct procedures were not followed in the recording of undercover transactions.
State witness Theo Lochner concluded his evidence yesterday by stating that correct procedures were not followed during the recording of the undercover transactions that led to the arrest of 13 high-profile accused, who are now facing charges of illegal diamond dealing, possession and sale of unpolished diamonds, money laundering and racketeering.
Warrant Officer Lochner was called by the State this week to testify about his role in Project Darling, the undercover police operation where an undercover agent, Linton Jephta, allegedly sold illegal diamonds to the accused – Ashley Brooks, Patrick Mason, Manojkumar Detroya, Komilan Packirisamy, Ahmed Khorani, Antonella Florio-Poone, McDonald Visser, Willem Weenink, Sarel van Graaf, Carl van Graaf, Kevin Urry, Trevor Pikwane and Frank Perridge – during several transactions.
The transactions took place at various addresses in Kimberley, including private homes and business premises, and involved one or more accused.
Lochner was the SAPS electronic technician responsible for transferring and copying audio visual recordings made by Jephta during the undercover operations.
He testified that he received the recording equipment from the case’s investigating officer, Warrant Officer Louis Potgieter, whereafter he downloaded the audio and visual information (recorded during undercover transactions between Jephta and the accused) onto a hard drive, made copies of the contents and then handed it back to Potgieter.
Lochner testified that while it was possible, he never made any changes to the recordings, adding that incorrect times or dates, or the absence of sound, could be attributed to battery loss, human error or the incorrect activation of technical recording evidence.
State advocate Theunis Barnard yesterday made an application that the audio-visual recordings (videos) be handed in as exhibits for Lochner to testify on the contents, but this was heavily objected to by the defence council.
Various legal representatives of the accused said that the only person who could testify about the admissibility of the video evidence was Jephta, as he made the recordings, and that Lochner could not testify about the content because he was never present before or the during the recordings and also never met Jephta or received any reports from him.
Judge Bulelwa Pakati dismissed the application for the videos to be viewed, saying that Lochner was not qualified to testify on its content and that the videos should be handed in via the correct witness.
During cross-examination, advocate Terry Price SC asked Lochner where the five recording devices used had come from and he replied that one was State property and that the others came from Potgieter, adding that Potgieter had mentioned that De Beers had supplied them to the police.
Lochner stated that he had spent about half an hour training Potgieter in the use of the equipment and assumed that Potgieter would, in turn, instruct Jephta on how to use the recording devices.
It further transpired that Lochner signed a second statement (that replaced his first statement) where reference to transactions that did not have Section 252 A (of the Criminal Procedure Act) clearance, were removed. Lochner explained that legal undercover operations could not be conducted without 252 A clearance.
Lochner testified that he had previously (not during Project Darling) acted as a police agent in undercover operations where technical recording equipment had been used during “several instances”.
Advocate Ferdi van Heerden asked Lochner about his experiences and involvement during these operations and Lochner confirmed the following: “The technical person would test the recording equipment, and, in the presence of the agent and his handler, place the equipment on the (body of) the agent and switch it on. All persons present would then introduce themselves and give details about the project they are conducting. While the equipment was recording, the agent would be given instructions about the provisions of section 252 A. His vehicle and body would then be searched and any contents of pockets etc., shown (on the video). The agent would then relate his instructions about where he was going, the name of the suspect (target) and his purpose. Then only, would the handler take out the exhibits (diamonds) and hand it over visibly to the agent, while audibly ‘tasking’ the agent. When the agent is in his vehicle he should state the time and date and relay where he is going and again when he arrived at the location. During the transaction all faces, illegal articles, the handing over of diamonds and receiving of money should be recorded.
The deal has to be proven.”
Lochner added that this was how agents and handlers were trained to conduct undercover operations
Van Heerden put it to him that this was not the way it was done during Project Darling, with the tasking, handling of exhibits and involved persons not on the video, to which Lochner replied “that is not the correct procedure”.
During re-examination by Barnard, Lochner was asked how long had this been the accepted procedure, to which he replied “for many years – since the time of the old Diamond and Gold Unit”.
The case was yesterday postponed to next year with Price making a “strong request” that the State call a “pertinent” witness next, referring to Potgieter or Jephta. Danie van der Lith