The Cape Town Regional Court on Friday refused to order the withdrawal of corruption charges against New Labour Party leader Peter Marais and former deputy social development minister David Malatsi.
The pair are accused of receiving R400 000 in kickbacks from the developers of the Roodefontein golf estate near Plettenberg Bay.
Malatsi and Marais, a former premier of the Western Cape and ex-New National Party leader in the province, had their bail of R10 000 each extended.
Malatsi, who quit the deputy national minister’s post in January this year after the Roodefontein furore became public, was previously Western Cape MEC for development planning.
A demand for the withdrawal of the charges was made by the defence team, Advocate Hugo Rossouw and attorney Richard Dixon, due to the absence of Count Ricardo Agusta, the front man for the developers of the golf estate, who was to have joined Marais and Malatsi as accused number three.
Agusta has acknowledged handing money to the NNP, which he claimed was intended to be used for ”the benefit of impoverished people in the Western Cape”.
The bulk of the money was being held in trust pending the finalisation of the case.
Prosecutor Louis van Niekerk told magistrate Piet Nel the State needed time to secure the attendance of Agusta, who had terminated the mandate of his legal team and was presently overseas.
Van Niekerk said he had been contacted just two weeks ago and was told that Agusta was still out of the country.
Van Niekerk said he met last week with Agusta’s new legal team, who were given full particulars of the charges. The new legal team was now in the process of obtaining instructions from Agusta.
Van Niekerk asked for a postponement to September 12. He said the present defence team would oppose his request for a postponement but added that the State also wanted the case to proceed speedily.
Van Niekerk said the State had to uphold Agusta’s right to engage counsel of his choice and it also had an international obligation to ensure that Agusta was joined as accused number three in South Africa.
Van Niekerk said the State had no indication that Agusta was not willing to return to South Africa voluntarily.
Rossouw, for Marais, said the constitution guaranteed Marais the same rights as Agusta had. He said Marais and Malatsi were entitled to a speedy trial but the trial was being delayed because Agusta’s rights were being given priority.
Rossouw said the State had known in February that Agusta was sailing the high seas on a yacht.
Rossouw said the facts were that an election was due in April next year and that Marais would be prejudiced as a politician. It would be difficult for him to electioneer with a corruption case hanging over his head. The sooner the case was finalised, the sooner Marais could get on with his political career.
Rossouw said the usual procedure was for an accused to be arrested and then to get his legal team in line, and not the other way around as was happening with Agusta.
He said the situation was exactly the same as with the German fraudster Jurgen Harksen, as protracted extradition procedures would now have to be launched to secure his return.
Rossouw asked why his client had to endure months of unnecessary legal expenses and suggested the case be withdrawn against Marais and Malatsi and that they be brought to court again as soon as Agusta returned to the country.
Dixon, for Malatsi, said his client was in the same position as his political career had been suspended due to the corruption charge, and for this reason he was unable to take part in next year’s elections.
He said Agusta had decided he would no longer co-operate and had even changed his legal team. The magistrate ruled that delays of this kind were not unusual for a case with complexities such as this one and that the request for a postponement was not unreasonable in the circumstances.
Nel said it was too soon for the court to rule that the delay caused by a further postponement was unreasonable. – Sapa