‘This is turning into a blame game’

“What I fail to understand is why all these State witnesses were called (during the trial-within-atrial) if the only issue was admissibility (of evidence). Was there not an unnecessary delay (caused by the State) in calling witnesses that had nothing to do with proving admissibility?

“As far as I’m concerned, admissibility refers to the identification of targets and weather requirements were met and due authority was given (with regard to the trap setting processes),” Daffue stated.

Roothman said that Pakati did make a ruling during the trial-within-a-trial that only “relevant” evidence may be led.

Referring to the e-mail (that prompted the application for recusal) sent by Pakati to the security head attached to the Office of the Chief Justice, Rozanna Aysen, and then forwarded to advocate Abraham Johannes Botha, who was the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the Northern Cape during Project Darling, Daffue stated that it was “inconceivable” that the DPP and the SAPS took two years to investigate “such a simple thing”.

During her recusal judgment, Pakati indicated that she was neither aware that her e-mail was forwarded to the Office of the DPP for decision and the SAPS for investigation, nor was she informed of the decision by the Office of the DPP (not to prosecute).

Dealt

“The DPP in Kimberley became aware of Pakati’s “problem” during September 2016. That matter should have been dealt with in a week.

“The DPP should be blamed, as this information was only presented (to court) in August 2018. If it had been dealt with earlier, Pakati could have recused herself earlier, during 2016 already. Who should be blamed for this delay?” Daffue stated.

Roothman responded by saying that it was now a “blame game”, with Pakati blaming the State, the State blaming Pakati and the defence blaming the State (for the non-disclosure and delay).

He added that according to case law, Pakati had an obligation to disclose the bribe attempt, while no case law existed that placed the onus on the State to disclose.

To this Daffue responded by saying that the State might have had an “ethical” responsibility to disclose.

Roothman added that if it was it not for the actions of the accused, who approached Pakati with an application for her recusal, the matter would have been continuing.

Roothman said that there was “no indication that Pakati acted biased and the application for her recusal was not warranted”.

“The delay in the matter is as a result of the accused. Now is not the appropriate time for a permanent stay of prosecution application, that can only be granted on the basis of exceptional circumstances that do not exist in this case.

“It should be granted as a last resort, where irreparable trial damage and prejudice to accused were incurred. At this stage there is no indication of an undue delay,” Roothman stated and requested that the application be dismissed.

Daffue is expected to deliver judgment on the application for permanent stay of prosecution in the Northern Cape High Court next month.