National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula at the Good Hope Chamber on 23 February 2022 in Cape Town. Picture: Gallo Images/Jeffrey Abrahams
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said it will ask for a “substantial amount” of bail for National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula so she won’t “abscond”.
The High Court in Pretoria is expected to hear an application on Monday by embattled Mapisa-Nqakula for an order interdicting the NPA from arresting her.
The matter was earlier postponed to 3pm by Judge Sulet Potterill.
In papers, Investigating Directorate (ID) deputy director Bheki Manyathi said the state will not oppose bail for Mapisa-Nqakula, but it will be a “substantial amount”.
“I have made it clear to the applicant’s legal representative (Stephen May) that the state will not oppose bail. However, it is still imperative that the applicant be processed so that her matter is enrolled for trial.
“I also stated that one of the important factors is that we require the court to set a substantial amount of bail that will act as an incentive for her not to abscond, as opposed to a summons that does not pose any monetary loss in the event of absconding,” Manyathi said.
ALSO READ: ‘Mapisa-Nqakula does not have a right not to be arrested’ – NPA
Manyathi is adamant that the state never threatened to arrest Mapisa-Nqakula without her lawyers being present.
“I never at any stage said that she would be arrested without her lawyer being present. I understand that there have been interactions between her legal representative and the chief investigator, Mr [Dylan] Perumal. Even in those interactions as it will appear later below, there was never a threat that she would be arrested… in the absence of her legal representative. The discussions had always been with her legal representatives,” he said.
On Tuesday, the Hawks, acting on behalf of the NPA’s Investigative Directorate (ID), raided Mapisa-Nqakula’s home in Johannesburg amid corruption allegations.
Manyathi claimed that the search operation was delayed for more than an hour to wait for the arrival of her legal representative.
“The legal representative prior to the search being executed spoke to the executing officer, Sergeant Suneel Bellochun, on the cellular phone and ordered him to leave the premises and to wait in the street, as he was going to approach the High Court immediately to interdict the officers from executing the search.
“The lawyer arrived and observed the search as would be evident from the audio recording. It was noted that the entire inside of the house has CCTV and it would be of interest to the court, to view the CCTV footage. The applicant, however, has not made mention of this in her founding affidavit,” Manyathi said.
Manyathi said they wanted specific items seized from Mapisa-Nqakula’s home.
“We wanted to search and seize two handbags, a wig and documents relating to the renovations on her house. The search took place on 19 March 2024. The investigators made an audio recording of the search and seizure process. I will supply the audio in due course.
“It was considered whether to conduct a video recording of the search operation, but it was decided against doing so as it could cause a security risk and possibly infringe on her right to privacy,” Manyathi said.
Manyathi also said it is clear that Mapisa-Nqakula believes there is no case against her.
“This position is baseless and is meant just to create sensational misinformation. The applicant cannot contend that there is no case against her simply because she has not seen the contents of the docket. On her own version, she is still seeking access to the docket.
“I must state, that in this instance, there is evidence under oath that gratifications (bribes) were asked for by [Mapisa-Nqakula] and given to her in cash and a wig,” Manyathi said.
Manyathi said during the search and seizure, Mapisa-Nqakula asked the investigators Suneel Bellochun and Brian Padayachee if she was being arrested at that time.
“Both Bellochun and Padayachee confirmed that they were not there to arrest her. Their presence there was for search and seizure in terms of the warrant. I make this point to demonstrate that if the investigators had any intent of not co-operating with the applicant, they could have arrested her then, but they did not.
“They did however, in the presence of the attending lawyer, advise her of the process that would unfold the next day being the 20th of March 2024, which included surrendering herself at Lyttelton Saps where she would be processed, charged officially according to police standards and be taken to court immediately where the matter would be placed on the court roll and the bail hearing would have taken place unopposed,” Manyathi said.
Manyathi added that while Mapisa-Nqakula’s attorney Stephen May “repeatedly states that she is willing to co-operate with law enforcement, their conduct indicates otherwise”.
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.
ALSO READ: Mapisa-Nqakula launches urgent interdict in bid to halt her arrest
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
