Expert flags concerns over NPA’s evidence in Mapisa-Nqakula’s bribery allegations

A reliance on evidence from just one witness could weaken the state’s case in the National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula matter, says a leading legal expert.

The High Court in Pretoria will today hear an application by embattled Mapisa-Nqakula for an order interdicting the National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA) Investigating Directorate (ID) from arresting her.

ALSO READ: The show must go on: Parliament announces Speaker Mapisa-Nqakula’s replacement

Mapisa-Nqakula has been implicated in bribery allegations, involving more than R2.3 million, dating back to her time as defence minister – a matter first raised in parliament in 2021, by United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa.

NPA spokesperson advocate Mthunzi Mhaga said the ID would oppose the application “as we believe it is baseless and has no merit”.

Mapisa-Nqakula could walk

Mapisa-Nqakula spent the weekend at home with family, friends and advisors. While the allegations could be damning, with Mapisa-Nqakula having expressed a concern that the NPA was out to humiliate her, Accountability Now executive director advocate Paul Hoffman has warned that a reliance on the sole evidence from whistle-blower Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, the owner of Umkhombe Marine, could weaken the state’s case.

ALSO READ: Ramaphosa on Mapisa-Nqakula: ‘When processes reach a particular point, action will be taken’

The freight and logistics company reportedly scored R210 million in SA National Defence Force tenders in 2019, while she was married to the military health services’ deputy surgeon-general, Noel Ndhlovu.

Hoffman said: “She [Mapisa-Nqakula] has a pending criminal trial in which the onus is on the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was involved in corruption.

“That will be a difficult onus for the state to discharge, especially if it is relying on evidence from a single witness, who is a Section 204 witness – somebody who is only talking because she does not want to get into trouble in other respects – without collaboration from other sources on the corrupt transactions.

“The speaker of parliament may well be acquitted if reliance on Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s evidence without any corroboration is all that will be presented before court.”

ALSO READ: Call for Mapisa-Nqakula to resign pending corruption, money laundering probe

Section 204 is only used in exceptional circumstances, where it is in the best interest of justice to use the provision, with the court deciding on whether to grant immunity to a witness, after the evaluation of their evidence.

‘No legal implications’

University of Pretoria constitutional law professor Koos Malan has ruled out any legal implications for Mapisa-Nqakula in her position as speaker.

“The National Assembly can still function because her deputy has been appointed to act in her place – without any effect on the functioning of parliament.

ALSO READ: Hawks raid Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula’s home in corruption probe

“But implications of her having taken special leave while facing corruption charges are far-reaching. A raid at her home has shown that the Hawks are capable and willing to take emphatic action,” said Malan.

Scandals attached to Mapisa-Nqakula while she was minister of defence:

• Being grilled by MPs after the army allegedly violated rules and health regulation protocols when procuring an unregistered drug, Heberon (interferon alpha 2b), from Cuba;
• Misusing state resources for party business by allowing an ANC delegation in 2020 to use an air force jet to travel to Zimbabwe for a meeting with ZanuPF officials; and
• Smuggling family friend Michelle Wege from Burundi with a false passport in 2016, using a state jet.

Independent political analyst Sandile Swana said: “Here was a minister who was previously accused of illegally smuggling a person into the country using an SA National Defence Force aircraft as a taxi.

“Despite her being known for her culture of abusing state resources, President Cyril Ramaphosa appointed her as the speaker – someone already in disrepute by 2020.

“It was clear she was going to be arrested in office and had no choice but to avoid the embarrassment – prompting her to take a leave of absence.

ALSO READ: ‘What bribes? Not me,’ Mapisa-Nqakula rebuffs allegations

“Legally, she is still in office – an office she was given despite the fact that this case had already been in progress by 2020.

“This is not an indication of a country moving to clean up corruption from an ANC perspective.”