Mapisa-Nqakula's Legal Team Seeks Dismissal in Corruption Case Amid Weak Evidence Claims

As former Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula awaits a decision in her R4.55 million corruption and money laundering trial, her legal team is calling for the case to be dismissed. They argue that the prosecution's evidence is insufficient to justify the continuation of the case.

On Monday, Mapisa-Nqakula's lawyers presented their arguments before the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria, asserting that the State relies heavily on the testimony of a single witness, businesswoman Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu. They claim that her evidence has been contradicted and lacks credibility.

Mapisa-Nqakula faces a total of 12 charges of corruption and one charge of money laundering related to her time in office between 2016 and 2019. She has consistently pleaded not guilty. The core of the defence's argument revolves around the assertion that although evidence exists of money transactions, it fails to demonstrate any quid pro quo arrangement.

"There is absolutely no evidence at all by Nombasa that she paid the money to the accused in order for the accused to do anything or not to do anything or something to benefit Nombasa or any other person," stated Siyabulela Mapoma SC, representing Mapisa-Nqakula.

During the proceedings, Judge Mashudu Munzhelele expressed surprise at Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu's admission of payments, questioning whether these were made with the expectation of receiving favourable treatment from Mapisa-Nqakula. The defence emphasized that establishing corruption requires proof of intent from both the giver and the receiver of the funds.

The defence also highlighted inconsistencies among the State's witnesses, suggesting that their testimonies contradicted Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu's account. While the law permits a conviction based on a single witness's testimony, the defence contended that this is particularly crucial given Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu's status as a Section 204 witness, which warrants cautious evaluation of her statements.

State prosecutor Emile van der Merwe countered these claims, asserting that all witnesses provided credible accounts. He dismissed the defence's concerns about the Section 204 witness-immunity process as irrelevant to the current application.

The defence further scrutinized the WhatsApp messages presented by the State, arguing that several were deleted by Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu before being submitted as evidence. They also noted that individuals who supposedly copied these messages were not called to testify, raising questions about their authenticity.

"The sanitisation of the WhatsApp messages … and total absence of WhatsApp calls and/or cellphone calls is telling," Mapoma stated, emphasizing that these factors undermine the reliability of the evidence linking the alleged financial transactions to Mapisa-Nqakula.

Additionally, the defence accused Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu of presenting messages in a misleading manner and claimed that the so-called codes used in discussions about money were fabricated. They argued that her explanations regarding these codes varied throughout her testimony, leading to doubts about their legitimacy.

In response, Van der Merwe questioned why Mapisa-Nqakula did not return the funds if there were no illegal intentions behind the payments. He asserted that she must present her defence as she is the only one capable of answering this crucial query.

Ultimately, the defence's push for a discharge hinges on whether the evidence provided by the State is sufficient for a reasonable court to convict. The defence maintains that the current evidence does not meet this threshold, urging the court to consider the implications of Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act in their decision.

Source: www.dailymaverick.co.za