Cape Town - Lawyers for the eight accused in the R2.5 million tender fraud case against directors and employees of Ilitha Painters and Decorators – trading as The Construction Company (TCC) – and two City officials have failed in their bid to have the matter struck off the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court roll.
During on Thursday’s hearing of the State’s application for rebonding the eight, who are currently out on bail, advocates Reuben Liddell for TCC, its directors and employees, and Lyle Hendricks for the two City officials had their pleas turned down by Magistrate Ronel Oliver.
Liddell, who is representing TCC directors Asif Khan and Abdul Karrim Khan and their employees Uwais Khan, Irfaan Khan, Craig Kannemeyer and Abdulatief Abrahams, had argued his clients’ constitutional rights to a speedy trial were being prejudiced.
Hendricks told the court the health of his clients had suffered because of the stress of the case.
When they were arrested for the alleged fraud in November last year, the Khan brothers were each granted R50 000 bail, while Kannemeyer, Abrahams as well as Majiet and Stanbul were each granted bail of R10000.
As was the case when the accused last appeared before the magistrate on Friday last week, only seven of them were in court. Liddell told the court Kannemeyer was still abroad.
The case stems from an October 2020 complaint lodged with the police by anti-crime activist Hanif Loonat and relates to a housing tender for the maintenance of the City-owned housing units.
When he lodged the complaint, Loonat alleged Ilitha Painters and Decorators was involved in a corrupt relationship with the City.
When the matter resumed on Thursday afternoon Liddell asked the case’s investigating officer, Andre Pekeur of the SAPS Commercial Crimes Unit, about whether the statements received by the police that sparked the investigation were by Loonat and businessman Raziek Rajah, to which Pekeur replied in the affirmative.
Liddell then wanted to know if Loonat and Rajah had pressured the police into arresting his clients and having them brought to court, but Pekeur said while he had not personally come under pressure he could not speak for other officers.
At this point Magistrate Oliver interrupted Liddell to ask where this line of questioning was leading and Liddell replied that his purpose with the questions was to show that the case had been brought to court prematurely.
After establishing the cash flow analysis of the bank statements of the accused was incomplete, Liddell argued that this and the fact that they had only been served with a draft charge sheet showed his clients had been arrested before the investigation was completed.
In her ruling on the extended bond for the accused, the magistrate said that while Liddel and Hendricks were correct in saying the court must not ignore the constitutional need for a speedy trial, she was not of the view that the State was engaging in delaying tactics.
Oliver said she was independent of the prosecution and it was up to her to decide if the State’s request met the criteria set out in the law.
She ordered the eight accused to have their bonds extended until their next appearance at 9am on May 26.