NPA explains what happened with ‘drunken driving crash’ case of new boss
There was little chance of the case succeeding based on the evidence available, says spokesperson.
Dr Silas Ramaite. Picture supplied
Following President Cyril Ramaphosa’s appointment of Dr Silas Ramaite as acting national director of public prosecutions, questions began to be asked about his arrest in 2011 on drunken driving charges in Limpopo.
Ramaite was arrested near Levubu, Limpopo, when he was alleged to have crashed his Jaguar into a Nissan 1400 bakkie.
The collision was confirmed at the time by then provincial spokesperson Lieutenant-Colonel Ronel Otto, who said Ramaite had been charged with reckless and negligent driving, as well as driving under the influence.
Ramaite’s case was postponed until September 2 of that year for further investigation. The charges were subsequently provisionally withdrawn pending the results of the blood tests of both Ramaite and the Nissan driver.
NPA spokesperson Luvuyo Mfaka informed The Citizen on Tuesday evening that senior public prosecutor Sanet Jacobson had then declined to prosecute Ramaite.
Jacobson was based in Pretoria, according to Mfaka, even though the case happened in Limpopo, which appeared to be a strange anomaly.
However, the NPA finally responded yesterday in full on the matter, with NPA spokesperson Luvuyo Mfaku requesting the response be published in full:
“The Chief Prosecutor for the Pretoria-cluster was requested to allocate this case to a Senior Prosecutor from the Pretoria-cluster since there were allegations that Dr Ramaite was well known in the Limpopo province and justice might not be seen to be done. Adv E.M. Jacobson was tasked to conduct the prosecution of the case and she received the docket in August 2013.
“After consultation with the two police officials and the complainant the prosecutors established on their evidence that more than 3 hours expired before the blood was drawn. The doctor submitted the reports of the blood-drawing only on 05 September 2011 (three months after the incident) after the initial reports and hospital files got lost. He relied on his memory to complete the forms in respect of time and observations. There were irreconcilable discrepancies in their evidence. There were also material discrepancies in respect of the blood kit serial numbers. This is significant and the blood reports would not be admissible in light of the above reasons.
“During consultation, both SAPS members indicated that had the complainant not alleged the issue of drunkenness, they would have dealt with the accident and the matter as one of possible reckless/negligent driving. Sergeant Masikhwa conceded that the reason she took both drivers to the hospital for blood samples was because she could not tell who was drunk and who was not, as she is not an expert. She said she was dependent on the outcome of the blood sample for a determination of who was drunk and who was not. Constable Nyambeni said both drivers appeared fine to him.”
Wits associate law professor and practising advocate James Grant said that as someone who supported the decision not to prosecute former president Jacob Zuma on the corruption and racketeering charges he now faces after extensive court action, it was unlikely Ramaite would be able to overturn the decision to prosecute Zuma, even if he wanted to.
“It’s a long story, but I don’t think so. That’s because it’s a decision the then NDPP Mokotedi Mpshe took way back,” Grant said. “The consitution and NPA Act seem to restrict the right of review to decisions of DPPs.
“There has been some discussion in the past in the Constitutional Court as to whether this power can’t be found elsewhere, but to my knowledge, it left this undecided.”
