Tight security and prosecution blunders marked the first few days of the high-profile trial
Marianne Merten
Four years and nine months after Hard Livings gang boss Rashaad Staggie was shot and set alight during a People Against Gangsterism and Drugs (Pagad) march, five prominent current and ex-Pagad members are standing trial for his murder and public violence.
In many circles the trial has been linked to “urban terror” a term coined when drive-by shootings and bombings moved from the Cape Flats into white Cape Town.
Several Cabinet ministers like Steve Tshwete last year publicly blamed Pagad for a spate of 21 bombings between June 1998 and September 2000 and attacks on policemen and judicial officers.
On Wednesday the Cabinet approved a plan and cash to protect judicial officers presiding over Pagad cases and police investigating them.
In many respects such attitudes have set the tone for proceedings not related to the law. Police sniffer dogs have checked out at least one suspicious car outside the court for bombs; several officers stand guard in the public gallery and a VIP protection policeman sits near the judge in court.
The opening remarks by a member of the defence team, advocate Paul Eia, took issue with such attitudes and recent statements by Judge Nathan Erasmus that appeared to link Pagad to the death threats he received since jailing one member to 11 life terms for various murders and shootings.
“It is certainly no secret that my clients are members of the organisation known as Pagad, a lawful organisation, and of whose membership no one has been convicted of an act of urban terror,” Eia said. “I, and indeed this court, might be forgiven for having mistaken this matter to be a murder case.”
On the other side of counsels’ bench is state advocate Willie Viljoen, who has driven the numerous efforts to get to the bottom of Staggie’s murder. He led the never-completed inquest following the collapse of the state’s case against Pagad supporter Ozeer Booley when key witnesses changed their testimonies minutes before the trial in early 1998. He has since told the court that trial was based on the statement of a witness who proved to be unreliable.
Back in 1988 Viljoen successfully prosecuted another group of bombers Umkhonto weSizwe cadre Ashley Forbes and 14 others many of whom are senior policemen and public figures today.
Statements by Forbes and others that they were tortured were denied. It was only in 1997, when Jeff Benzien, a former member of the security police’s terrorist tracking unit, appeared before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that these denials were proven as lies.
This week, the start of the state’s case against Pagad leader Abdus-Salaam Ebrahim, security chief Salie Abader, Moegsien Mohamed, former spiritual leader Abdurazak Ebrahim and ex-security chief Nadthmie Edries was marked by a defective subpoena and legal wrangling over video footage from Reuters and Associated Press.
Viljoen told Judge John Foxcroft he was needed to help finalise the application to obtain the original footage through a London court.
It was only two weeks ago that Reuters in London became aware of renewed attempts to obtain the video. The news organisation will vigorously defend Viljoen’s application.
A lengthy court battle abroad is anticipated. Yet, talk of approaching English authorities first surfaced after raids at the SABC, Reuters and Associated Press on last year’s International Press Freedom Day. Scorpion investigators accompanied by Viljoen seized tapes of unedited material at the SABC.
The state lost the first round in its fight to have top photographer Benny Gool take the witness stand. His subpoena was delivered to the home of his estranged wife, where he does not live. When she refused to accept it, the document was left behind with the wrong date on it April 2 instead of May 2 and without a description how it was served. The subpoena was also incorrectly stamped by the office of the director of public prosecutions instead of the high court.
The judge asked: “Can’t a proper subpoena be issued? This document is inadequate.” Following the state’s request to serve a new subpoena on Gool’s lawyer in court, the judge instructed: “Follow the proper legal course.”