Defence counsel in the Boeremag treason trial on Monday complained bitterly that someone seemed to be listening in on their conversations during private consultations inside the courtroom.
One of the defence advocates, Bernard Bantjes, said he had recently found out that private consultations, when the court was not sitting, were allegedly being recorded, sent to a central computer and then erased once a week.
This was apparently despite recording equipment being switched off when the trial was not in sitting, he said.
Other defence advocates said they had also received complaints before that someone was listening in on their conversations, but chief prosecutor Paul Fick SC said this was the first time he heard of the allegation, and he was equally upset about it.
Judge Eben Jordaan said such a situation could not continue and recording equipment would have to be removed from the room if necessary when the court was not sitting.
Judge Jordaan granted a final postponement to defence counsel to prepare for the defence case.
This was after complaints by advocate Harry Prinsloo, who represents accused Mike du Toit, that he still needed time to prepare. Prinsloo said the state had four advocates to prepare their case, but that he had to battle on alone and struggle through a record comprising thousands of pages.
Jordaan expressed concern that he had been assigned appeal cases for the next five months and that there were plans to assign him to a very long trial.
”We will still have to debate this, because I don’t known how I will manage two lengthy trials at the same time,” he said.
The defence case will commence on October 1.
Discharge applications
Earlier this month Jordaan ruled that enough evidence had been presented by the state on which a reasonable person might convict the 21 accused on charges of high treason, terrorism and sabotage.
Jordaan dismissed applications by nine of the accused for their discharge on all of the 42 charges against them, and by 11 others for their discharge on some of the charges.
He, however, stressed that the ruling was not a preview of the findings at the end of the trial, when the full spectrum of the evidence would have to be considered.
The applications took over a month and more than 1 100 pages of argument.
Jordaan said it was clear that ”document 12”, in all its guises, had as its aim the violent overthrow of South Africa’s government. It foresaw deeds of violence, stockpiling and using weaponry, damage to property and the loss of life.
There was evidence of a series of meetings to discuss the plans; that persons were recruited to join the Boeremag; that some of the accused were sworn in as members and took an oath of allegiance and that a large number of weapons and ammunition was gathered.
There was also evidence that a large number of deadly and effective explosives were manufactured, that different parts of the country were scouted and that a number of vehicles were bought for use as car bombs.
The state had further presented evidence that a heavily-armed convoy had taken off from Bela-Bela to carry out the mission and that bombs had exploded at several places, killing one person and injuring another.
Despite this, the manufacture of explosives and bombings had continued. — Sapa