Corruption accused Kishene Chetty has accused the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) of treating him unfairly in his Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) case that was heard in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, recently.
This was as Chetty’s case was struck off the roll more than three times but, days afterwards, “mysteriously” made its way back on to the roll.
He said this was done without following court procedure.
“Normally when a judge has struck the case off the roll, and the State wants to reinstate it, it must follow the uniform rules of the court’s register and that might take about a year or so because of the number of cases on the register.
“This did not happen because the advocate, prosecutor John Wilson, has a vendetta against me personally, hence they do things illegally just to get at me,” Chetty said.
He further alleged that Wilson was not working alone but with a senior prosecutor from the NPA and investigators – known to the publication – whom he accused of using state resources to frustrate and abuse him.
Chetty alleged that Wilson unilaterally went against the high court judgment (twice) which granted him access to his frozen assets. Chetty said the prosecutor instructed the curator to deny him and other respondents access to their assets.
Contacted for comment, Wilson said he was not allowed to communicate directly with the media. He directed “The Star’s” inquiry to NPA spokesperson Lumka Mahanjana.
However, Mahanjana did not respond to questions sent to her.
When “The Star” contacted the curator, Shawn Williams, he also referred the query to the NPA.
In a communication between him (Williams) and one of the defendants, Lorette Joubert, he admitted that he had received a mandate from the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) not to release assets as the case was struck off the roll by “mistake”.
“I am advised by the NDPP that the matter was struck from the roll in error. The State Attorney was in attendance to arrange a postponement. I am advised that this will be rectified shortly, and the matter postponed to another date. The assets therefore remain under restraint until the final restraint order has been argued.
“If the State is successful, the assets will remain under restraint until the criminal matter has been dealt with,” Williams said.
The Star