The Investigating Directorate (ID) came out guns blazing, disputing businessman Kishen Chetty’s allegations that the directorate had a “personal vendetta against him”.
ID’s spokesperson Henry Mamothame stated that charges that were furnished against Chetty as well as his respective co-accused were of a serious nature.
Mamothame said the ID had an obligation to ensure that these cases were ventilated in a court of law, without fear, favour or prejudice.
“It is therefore incorrect to insinuate that the IDAC, its investigators and the prosecutor hold a vendetta against the accused. The IDAC only acts on the evidence it has collected per its mandate.
“It should be noted that nine (9) applications have been litigated in different courts by Chetty and his co-accused on similar complaints of the so-called duplication of charges.
“All these applications have been dismissed by the various courts. Kishene Chetty even went as far as to register a criminal case based on the so-called duplication of charges, and that case was declined to be prosecuted,” he added.
Mamothame further detailed the cases ID had on the court roll relating to Chetty and his co-accused.
* Case 143/01/2022 (Silverton) – Relates to payments that were made for bail of police officials who were charged in a case Silverton Cas 335/05/2020, wherein the money used was derived from a PPE contract which was allegedly awarded unlawfully to a company owned by the Chetty family. The matter was postponed to 30 October 2024 for consultation.
* Case 144/01/2022 (Silverton) – Relates to the procurement of goods and services awarded to companies linked to the Chetty family by the South African Police Service (SAPS). The matter is back in court on 30 September 2024 for the appointment of a new magistrate.
* Case 145/01/2022 (Silverton) Paroex – Relates to a tender that was awarded to a company irregularly awarded to a company linked to the Chetty family to repair SAPS vehicles.
According to the ID, the accused included Chetty and SAPS officials.
Speaking to Chetty on Wednesday, he still stuck to his words that the State prosecutor’s decision to re-instate charges against him were purely personal and due legal processes were circumvented from the NDPP, which he said was showing apartheid tactics.
Mamothame insisted that the cases were of a serious nature, saying that the ID and its employees were not holding a vendetta against the accused.
On the question of the duplication of charges, Chetty also maintained that charges were taken from the Silverton Case 335/05/2020, which was struck from the roll in 2020.
However, the ID’s spokesperson described Chetty’s assertion as fallacious to suggest that the charges in the Paroex case were a duplication of some of the charges in the Silverton CAS 335/05/2020.
Despite ID’s rebuttal of the duplication, in the investigator’s sworn oath, Sunnel Bellochun admitted that he got some of the information from the original docket 335/05/2020, which he got from Colonel R Joubert.
“As part of our investigations, information was requested from Colonel R Joubert (Joubert) on 2020-11-26 with regard to a company named Paroex Auto Tech and Mechanical Holdings with Registration number 2016/504412/07 (Paroex).
“The information supplied by Joubert indicated that a number of contracts for goods and services were awarded to Paroex as contained in annexure marked SB1,” Bellochun disclosed in his statement.
The Star