Witnesses for graft trial raise eyebrows
THE amended indictment of former eThekwini mayor Zandile Gumede and her 21 co-accused, which has added the charge of racketeering, is worrisome.
At the end of the 347-page long indictment, the State revealed the names of 55 witnesses it intends to call to bolster its case and secure convictions of people like Gumede and suspended eThekwini city manager Sipho Nzuza.
What raised eyebrows was that some of the witnesses the State would later rely on when the case finally gets under way are people who are suspected to have committed serious crimes. For example, three of the witnesses work for DSW (Durban Solid Waste), the alleged piggy bank of corrupt eThekwini municipality officials and some ruling party members in the ANC region.
Prior to the issuing of the R320 million waste tender in 2017, there were allegations that they were illegally mining the department and Gumede and co knew about that, hence when they allegedly started what the State alleges to be a looting spree from 2016, their first target was DSW.
They knew that it was easy to fleece DSW of money because for the longest time, the department issued dubious tenders to companies linked to politicians and their friends and families.
One former mayor of the city, it was alleged, roped in his family to score a tender from the department. That historical revelation shows that DSW has been at the epicentre of corruption in the municipality.
Now, you can’t allow those people to escape scot-free merely because they have promised to fully co-operate with the State to nab Gumede, Nzuza and the others which the State called “main role-players”. What about their own alleged criminal activities of the past? If the State persists in giving amnesty to some and let others walk free, we will end with a situation where certain suspects get away with murder.
Lest we forget how some within the State and in their pursuit of personal vendetta and political agendas allowed Glenn Agliotti to walk free in exchange for the jailing of former police commissioner Jackie Selebi. In the case of Selebi, it was clear that the bigger fish was Agliotti but the State reached a deal with him just to nab Selebi who only received crumbs from Agliotti.
In that case, the State should have pursued both Selebi and Agliotti as it was clear that there were many witnesses who would have testified on its behalf and secure a conviction for both men.