Dog unit trial link to ‘Amigo’ defence

Durban - The Durban Regional Court was expected to rule on Tuesday on whether to suspend the trial of five Durban dog unit police officers who are facing charges of racketeering, extortion, theft and assault.

This is after their lawyers argued on Monday that the Constitutional Court had yet to make a finding on the constitutionality of sections of the racketeering act. An application is under way in the “Amigos” corruption trial involving Cape Town businessman Gaston Savoi and others.

Lawyer Mdu Mvune, acting for two of the accused - Simphiwe Nyawose and Sizwe Ntetha, both 39 - told the Durban court that it would therefore be “unsafe” and “not prudent” to proceed with the case.

Savoi and several senior KwaZulu-Natal government officials are facing charges of money laundering, racketeering and fraud related to contracts awarded to Intaka Holdings - owned by Savoi - for the supply of water purification and oxygen plants to the KZN departments of local government and health.

Savoi wanted the Constitutional Court to rule that a requirement in the racketeering act - that a person “ought to reasonably have known” their conduct constituted an offence of racketeering - was unconstitutional. His Durban High Court trial has been postponed until February while the Constitutional Court considers his application.

The five dog unit policemen - Thabisani Dladla, Jabulani Ngcobo, Solomon Shozi, Simphiwe Nyawose and Sizwe Innocent Ntetha – are each facing five counts of extortion, three of theft and three of assault, for allegedly being part of a group of officers who planted drugs on foreigners and then threatened them with arrest if they did not pay them a bribe.

Their lawyers on Monday submitted that it would be in the interest of justice to suspend the trial pending the Constitutional Court decision.

Advocate Joe Wolmarans, acting for Dladla and Ngcobo, said it would be highly prejudicial to the accused to be made to sit through a trial only to find that the proceedings have been declared null and void.

However, state advocate, Khumbu Shazi, told the court that it would be impractical for every racketeering matter to grind to a halt while the Constitutional Court deliberated on the sections of the act.

Shazi said the relevant sections did not affect the accused and applied for the charge sheet to be amended to strike out the words, “ought to reasonably have known”, saying that they were not meant to be there. She disputed Mvune’s submission that the amendment would be unlawful.

“They’re not supposed to be there, I don’t know how they ended up there (in the charge sheet),” Shazi said.

The defence opposed the application on the grounds that the authority to amend a charge sheet lay solely with the national director of public prosecutions.

Decisions on both applications are expected to be handed down today.

[email protected]

Daily News