Terrorism laws under scrutiny

A drawn-out debate as to whether Del Vecchio and

Patel were and are involved in terrorist-related activities, was delivered by both the defence and the State.

Naidoo argued that according to Section 2 of the Terrorism Act, his clients did not have any link to acts of terrorism.

Naidoo spoke in reference to a host of terror-related charges facing Del Vecchio and Patel.

These include the possession of flags which are used by Islamic State of Iraq and

Levant (ISIS/ISIL), the possession of bomb-making materials and instructions on how to make homemade bombs as well as that of a modified cellphone which is used as a trigger to set off an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) – similar devices to those used in the Manchester Attack in 2017 and the Brussels bombings in 2016.

Naidoo said there was ‘a fine line between freedom of association, freedom of thought and terrorism.’

‘The literature found belongs to Del Vecchio and not Patel, this literature is available freely from the internet, anyone is allowed to download this information, it does not mean that they are necessarily aligned to committing acts of terrorism.

‘The fact that those items (IED and bomb making instructions) were found at their premises is not sufficient that my clients committed acts of terrorism.

‘The State has not shown anywhere that the kidnapping, robbery and murder are an act of terrorism; an act of terrorism is when an organisation accepts responsibility for a crime,’ said Naidoo.

However, Magistrate Khallil told Naidoo the court needed to look at their acts being criminal even if they happen to be aligned to terrorism.

‘I am looking at the point of this being purely criminal as opposed to acts of terrorism; look at the WhatsApp chats between Del Vecchio and Patel, Del Vecchio talks about an elderly couple in the forest as being a good hunt,’ said Khallil.

The case against Del Vecchio, Patel and Mussa has been remanded to 24 August.

Meanwhile the plea bargain for the third accused in the case, Thambamandla Xulu (19), who was found in possession of the Saunders’ cellphones, could not be heard at the Verulam Magistrate’s Court.

Xulu appeared the day prior to his co-accused in front of Magistrate Theveloshni Badal, who told the court that the Verulam Magistrate’s Court did not have jurisdiction to hear Xulu’s plea.

Xulu would therefore need to be transferred to Mtunzini High Court, as he was formerly charged at the Mtunzini

Police Station, or the Verulam Regional Court would be able to hear the plea bargain.

He is expected to plead and be put into witness protection as he is believed to have turned State witness.