A letter from an Italian judge, which is apparently strongly critical of the way a South African magistrate has been dealing with the Palazzolo hearings, was handed in to the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court on Friday.
The court is overseeing the questioning of a series of witnesses whose testimony will be used as evidence in alleged Mafioso’s Vito Palazzolo’s trial in absentia in Italy.
Handing up the letter, Palazzolo’s advocate, Jan Heunis, also said he has reason to believe the Department of Justice has tried to replace Magistrate Derek Winter as the presiding officer in the South African proceedings.
”All our attempts to have that either confirmed or denied, and to have access to the file for purposes of determining whether that was indeed the case, have failed.”
The controversial letter was written by the head of the tribunal hearing the case in Italy, Palermo Judge President Donatella Puleo — who is also attending the Cape Town hearings, but is allowed no role other than to ask questions through Winter.
Her letter followed an abortive and acrimonious trip by the Italian judges and prosecution team to Cape Town in March, in which no evidence was actually led.
The letter was addressed to the Italian ministers of justice and foreign affairs, among others.
Heunis said he received his copy from Palazzolo’s legal representatives in Italy.
Heunis said the letter contains complaints against Palazzolo’s Italian lawyers, as well as against himself.
”Since it also concerns the way you conducted this case,” he told Winter, ”it should as a matter of common courtesy, no to speak of professional courtesy, have been given or sent to you as well.”
Italian prosecutor Domenico Gozzo objected to the admission of the document, saying there is no doubt it is a privileged document and Heunis is using it ”improperly” in a bid to influence Winter.
”We are all aware that our adventure here in South Africa started with some misunderstandings, but this has nothing to do with the testimony we hearing now,” said Gozzo.
Winter said that since the document has also been addressed to attorneys’ organisations in Palermo and Rome, it can certainly not be described as privileged.
Once he has read it, he will decide whether it should be filed as an exhibit, or merely in the correspondence he has accumulated on the matter.
He said that on a personal note, he is not surprised that the Italian authorities are ”less than happy” following the March proceedings, and is also, therefore, not surprised that ”certain critical communications followed … critical of this court and other persons”.
”It’s expected of all presiding officers to be thick-skinned,” he said. ”I would like to believe this court does its duties in that fashion.” — Sapa