People who make or sell drugs from their homes could lose the properties to the state even if they were not convicted of drug-related crime, media reports said on Monday.
In a judgement on Friday, the Constitutional Court (Concourt) ruled that a Cape Town house used for the manufacture of drugs was forfeit to the state even though its owner had been acquitted on drugs charges.
”In this case I am satisfied that the forfeiture is not disproportionate in the circumstances of the case,” said the Concourt in a decision written by Judge Bess Nkabinde.
She found that the house was not merely incidental to the commission of the crime, and that almost every room had been adapted for the manufacturing of drugs.
In December 2000, police traced illegally imported drugs used to manufacture methamphetamine to a house in Woodstock in Cape Town, owned by Simon Prophet.
Traces of the drugs and indications methamphetamine was being manufactured on the premises were found in the house. Prophet was subsequently acquitted on drugs charges when it was found that the warrants used to search his home were invalid.
Before his acquittal, the state had seized the house under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.
Prophet challenged the seizure on the grounds that it was unreasonably harsh punishment and he had been acquitted. The case was heard in the Concourt earlier this year.
The state seized the property under chapter six of the Act, rather than chapter five.
Chapter five is concerned with the profits of crime and is used when a person has been convicted of an offence. Chapter six deals with the instrumentalities used in crime and does not rely on a conviction.
Prophet claimed he was involved in chemistry ”as an amateur and considered it a hobby” and that the seizure of his house was unconstitutional.
The Concourt refused to consider Prophet’s challenge to the constitutionality of chapter six itself, as he had not raised this in his case before the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The Concourt allowed him to appeal against the constitutionality of the seizure of the house, but ruled against him on this.
Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) head Willie Hofmeyr said the ruling was ”extremely important” to the state’s fight against crime.
”This ruling was vital … A lot of crime is economically motivated, and many career criminals see going to jail as an occupational hazard — a risk that they’re prepared to take in exchange for living a crime-funded high life.
”By seizing their property, we undermine that mentality,” said Hofmeyr.
The AFU intends ”aggressively” targeting for forfeiture houses used for drug laboratories, drug dealing and illegal shebeens. – Sapa