Cracks in the ranks of the 22 in the dock in the Boeremag treason trial became obvious this week when most of them failed to support an application by two of their number for the recusal of Judge Eben Jordaan.
On Tuesday, more than three years after the trial began, counsel for brothers Wilhelm and Johan Pretorius, advocate Frans van der Westhuizen, asked Jordaan to withdraw from the trial because of his clients’ ”reasonable apprehension” that the judge was biased.
Counsel for most of the other accused, including the other Pretorius brother, Kobus, told the court they were neither party to the application nor did they support it.
Some of the Boeremag triallists said they were in fact completely satisfied with the way in which the judge was handling the trial.
It is not yet known if the brothers’ father, Dr Lets Pretorius, supported the application. He was not in court on Tuesday because of an injury he sustained earlier.
Van der Westhuizen handed in a lengthy affidavit by Johan Pretorius, quoting various passages from the trial record of over 20 000 pages, from which he said it appeared that the judge was siding with the prosecution and hampering the defence in its cross-examination of witnesses.
Van der Westhuizen told Jordaan it was ”not a personal attack”, but centred on his client’s perception that they were not getting a fair trial.
He said the length and cost of the trial — already running into millions of rand — should play no role in the application.
In his affidavit, Pretorius said there were numerous incidents in which the judge favoured the prosecution and even suggested to them how to present their case ”by having eye contact with the investigating officer”.
He also solicited answers negative to the defence.
Pretorius complained that the judge appeared to ”do his own investigation” by getting information from the internet and a book about Boer prophet Siener van Rensburg.
He accused the judge of being impatient, interfering with cross-examination and unnerving defence advocates — sometimes through silence — by letting them know he regarded some questions as unnecessary.
It was especially noticeable that the judge usually became irritated during cross-examination of witnesses, but never when the state was presenting its case, he added.
Pretorius claimed remarks by the judge such as that it ”was going to be a long day” and that he felt ”hot and irritated” supported his case.
Jordaan said it would appear that he was being blamed for once refusing the defence a postponement, yet nothing was mentioned of the ”countless” times when the trial had to stand down so that defence advocates could consult with their clients.
He said the impression that he was impatient was ”totally wrong”.
”If you complain about me, you should have appeared before some of the men I had to appear in front of in my time. I received many hidings. Have you ever appeared in KwaZulu-Natal before Judges Roux and Joubert? I don’t even want to think about it. I get chills down my spine.”
The state, which said it vigorously opposed the application, will present argument on Wednesday.
The accused have denied guilt on 42 charges, ranging from treason to terrorism and murder, relating to an alleged right-wing coup plot aimed at violently overthrowing the African National Congress government.
Two of the accused, Herman van Rooyen and Rudi Gouws, are still on the run from police after escaping from the police cells at the High Court in May this year. — Sapa