Israel backs down on fugitive’s extradition case Family keeps killer behind bars
Parole decision reversed after children intervene
THE extradition case against an alleged Israeli fugitive, Shay Moslie, has been withdrawn, although details remain scarce as to exactly why.
Moslie’s extradition hearing began in October 2015, after the Israeli government sent through papers detailing Moslie’s alleged crimes.
Accused of being the director of an Israeli crime organisation, the initial papers – seen by the Saturday Star – said he and eight other members were sought by Israeli police to be tried for their roles in the murders of rival gang members.
In October 2011, a suspected member of the gang and friend of Moslie, Avi David, was murdered in the city of Bat-yam in Israel.
The first charge against Moslie relates to the alleged conspiracy to murder the suspected head of a rival gang, Moti Hassin, who Moslie believed was responsible for David’s murder.
A member of Moslie’s gang, who has since turned State witness, told investigators Moslie had asked that he assassinate Hassin with a sniper rifle on December 24, 2011.
While the plan failed, Moslie and his cohorts were allegedly responsible for the assassination of another member of the rival gang, Bar Cohen, who was shot multiple times at a public park in Bat Yam on January 30, 2012.
He was also accused of orchestrating the murder of two other members of Hassin’s organisation, Ohad Franco and Daniel Samara, who were killed in a drive-by shooting on February 20, 2012. Lastly, Moslie has also been charged with conspiracy to kill Moshe Okanin, a former business associate, but he later abandoned the assassination plot.
However, while these charges were put to him in the Randburg Magistrate’s Court as early as 2015, the case has dragged, with Moslie’s defence team claiming the papers submitted were not admissable, with at least two other altered versions submitted to the court in the intervening years.
On Thursday, after a threemonth postponement, prosecutor Christo Steyn said he and his colleagues had received word from the Israeli government asking that the extradition case against Moslie be withdrawn. Steyn asked that the court honour the request.
Moslie’s defence team – some of the country’s most prominent lawyers, Lawrence Hodes, Anton Katz and Ian Levitt – argued that the court would have to do more than simply withdraw the case. Katz asked that the court formally discharge the case through section 10(3) of the Extradition Act, which meant that should the Israeli government reinstitute the extradition hearing against Moslie, a new court would have to take into consideration the current court’s decision.
However, magistrate Pravina Rughoonandan said that based on the slow progression of the case, she had not ruled on the admissability of the papers submitted to her from the Israeli government. This meant, therefore, that no evidence had technically been submitted to the court, and thus the hearing had not begun in earnest. “The matter against you is withdrawn. You are free to go,” she ruled.
While the defence team did not succeed in a formal discharge, Levitt said his client was still pleased at the closure of the hearing. “It’s still a major victory. As is evidenced by the court’s ruling, it’s clear there was never a case against our client,” he said.
It remains unclear why the Israeli government withdrew the hearing against Moslie.
THE children of convicted killer Omar Sabadia know that one day he will be paroled and walk out of Kgosi Mampuru Prison a free man, but they still deserve the right to be heard.
“The proper procedure must be followed and the family are entitled to be heard,” said Ahmed Suliman, a lawyer acting for Sabadia’s three children.
“They cannot be excluded and they are entitled to voice their objection.”
The family were disappointed, he said, that they had not been consulted by the parole board ahead of Sabadia’s proposed release on Thursday.
Sabadia has served nearly 22 years in prison for planning the murder of his wife, Zahida.
“The family have some sense of relief that Sabadia was not released. However, there is no doubt the matter was badly handled by the board,” said Suliman.
“The family are aware that he cannot serve 50 years in prison. However, the Correctional Services Act provides that the proper procedure must be followed.”
Sabadia was informed that he had to submit written representations to prison authorities by June 28 as to why he was entitled to parole.
The former psychiatrist was told that he would be informed of developments in his case.
In 1996, the Johannesburg psychiatrist made headlines when he was arrested for hiring three hitmen – Albert Moeketsane, Richard Malema and Patrick Manyape – to kidnap his wife, murder her and leave her tied to a tree in the veld in Garankuwa.
Sabadia had planned to claim the R3 million insurance policy he had taken out on his wife’s life.
Having served over 22 years of his 50-year sentence, Sabadia was eligible for parole. However, the intervention of his family has put his release on hold.
Department of Correctional Services spokesperson Mocheta Monama said the family had been asked to take part in the process.
“As the department we take very seriously the aspect of victim participation towards restorative justice.
“In the case of Dr Sabadia, the family was invited to participate in the process. They indicated that they will not be available on the set date.
“However, the court order had to be obeyed. It was under these circumstances that the department applied for reconsideration of the decision by the parole board,” he said.
Monama added that one of the hitmen, Moeketsane, was recommended for parole with Sabadia.
The other two offenders, Malema and Manyape, were both released on parole, in 2009 and 2007 respectively
“The department has also applied for reconsideration on his case pending the outcome of the decision by the parole review board,” said the spokesperson.
He confirmed Sabadia would remain in prison while the review board studied its decision.
“The Department of Correctional
There is no doubt the matter was badly handled by the board
Services (Gauteng region) has taken a decision to apply for the matter to be referred to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board for reconsideration after a decision was taken by the review board on April 20 2018 to place Dr Omar Sabadia on parole effective from 20 June 2018.
“The decision of the parole board is therefore suspended pending the outcome of the decision by the review board,” he said.
“Whenever any offender reaches his minimum detention period, his profile is forwarded to the parole board by the case management committee for consideration.
“Like any other offender, Dr Sabadia was considered for parole when he reached his minimum detention period.
“It is only now that the parole board felt he met all the requirements and therefore granted parole,” said Monama.