The Northern Cape High Court has confirmed that after two courts gave fraud and corruption accused Gaston Savoi permission to undertake a business trip to Angola in July, police stopped him leaving the country in defiance of the court orders.
However, acting high court judge Wendy Hughes-Madondo last week dismissed Savoi’s application to amend his bail conditions to allow him to travel without having to seek permission from the authorities.
The Uruguayan is accused of bribing senior ANC politicians and public servants in KwaZulu-Natal and the Northern Cape, including ANC Northern Cape chairperson John Block, KwaZulu-Natal economic development minister Mike Mabuyakhulu and provincial ANC treasurer Peggy Nkonyeni, in exchange for multimillion-rand water purification contracts.
In his application for the relaxation of his bail conditions, Savoi complained about the way the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and investigating officers exercised their powers in granting and refusing him permission to travel.
Savoi provided proof that after his arrest he had travelled to France, and had previously been granted permission to travel to Angola, but could not secure a visa in time.
However, his legal team alleged in court papers that he was threatened with arrest if he left the country in July, in spite of the fact that the Pietermaritzburg Regional Court and the Kimberley Magistrate’s Court had given him permission to undertake the business trip to Angola.
The Mail & Guardian has previously reported how prosecutions boss Menzi Simelane told City Press that he had suspended the KwaZulu-Natal head of the asset forfeiture unit, Knorx Molelle, because he cut a deal with Savoi allowing him to visit Angola. However, Simelane was forced to reinstate Molelle last month after he approached the Labour Court in Johannesburg and the NPA failed to defend its action.
Molelle, who led a team that attached Savoi’s assets of up to R180-million, has since returned to work and threatened legal action against Simelane.
Savoi’s aborted business trip to Angola was under the spotlight again last week when he sought to amend his bail conditions.
According to his court papers, his company, Intaka, sold 71 water purification plants to the Angolan government, with the agreement of sale providing for the installation and commissioning of the plants and the training staff.
However, the papers said that Lieutenant Colonel Dylan Perumal, the Northern Cape investigating officer, had refused Savoi permission to travel, in spite of the court orders.
“The only reason he advanced for his refusal was that it was not essential for the applicant to travel to Angola,” said the heads of arguments in support of Savoi’s application. A Hawks investigator, Clarence Jones, had then threatened him with arrest if he left the country, it was claimed.
“There can be no question that this was an abuse of power by Jones to thwart the court orders of both the KwaZulu-Natal and Northern Cape courts,” Savoi’s court papers allege. “What is particularly disturbing is that Jones threatened to arrest the applicant [Savoi] on charges, which, according to him, arose in the Durban area.”
Jones then emailed Savoi’s attorney, informing him that his client should present himself at his office in Durban to be charged. However, no new charges were pending.
Jones and Perumal could not be reached for comment. However, the former said in an affidavit presented in court that he had not “blatantly” threatened to arrest Savoi if he tried to leave South Africa, but had asked Savoi’s lawyers to come to his office to deal with new evidence in the case.
The state said that the Northern Cape team was not invited to consultations between Savoi’s legal team and the prosecuting authorities in KwaZulu-Natal and was “surprised” to receive the court order allowing Savoi to travel to Angola. “This — was a clear case of litigation by ambush,” it said. “It is submitted that the applicant’s [Savoi’s] approach” of dividing and ruling “the prosecution in the two provinces cannot serve the interest of justice.”
In her judgment Hughes-Madondo conceded that Savoi was not considered a flight risk and that the police had defied court orders in preventing him from leaving the country.
However, she ruled that if she amended Savoi’s bail conditions, there would be two different sets of conditions governing his travel and this was not “practically feasible”.