Estina charges gone forever, says Ajay
NPA withdraws dairy scam case to ‘reinstate it later’
The Estina dairy project scam case against several Gupta family members and business associates was provisionally withdrawn yesterday – and Ajay Gupta has already predicted “it will never see the light of day again”.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) formally announced the case had been withdrawn against the eight accused: former Oakbay CEO Nazeem Howa, Varun Gupta, nephew of the Gupta brothers, Oakbay, former Sahara Computers CEO Ashu Chawla, Estina director Kamal Vasram and three Free State government officials Peter Thabethe, Sylvia Dlamini and Takisi Masiteng. The NPA had until Friday to hand over the finalised docket and indictment in the case, in which it alleged R250m intended for the upliftment of poor black farmers was siphoned to Gupta companies. The Bloemfontein magistrate’s court in August gave prosecutors three months to complete their investigation, so the accused could go on trial.
Instead, the prosecution chose to provisionally withdraw the case – a strategy the state hopes will make it easier to reinstate charges at a later date. “The withdrawal of charges is said to be provisional, but I am confident that this matter will never see the light of day again,” Ajay Gupta said in a statement released yesterday.
The accused were all arrested on February 14, just hours before then president Jacob Zuma resigned. They faced charges of fraud, theft, conspiracy to commit fraud and theft, contravening the Public Finance Management Act, contravening the Companies Act and contravening sections of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act. Ajay Gupta said the outcome of the Estina matter confirms that the family was “completely justified in their belief” that they would not be dealt with fairly by the NPA and SA Police Service and that family is considering its options in regards to possible legal action against the state. “That which cannot be undone is the significant legal cost that the family had to incur in order to secure their personal freedom, religious freedom and the right not have their property seized arbitrarily.”
What cannot be undone is family’s significant legal cost