Read more
The state maintained that the contents of the investigation diary were confidential.
Former National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula. Picture: AFP
Former National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula has failed in her bid to compel the state to fully disclose the contents of the docket in her corruption case.
The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria handed down its ruling on Friday, following arguments presented by both the defence and the state, which opposed her application.
The former speaker, who is out on R50 000 bail, faces 12 counts of corruption and one of money laundering.
The charges relate to allegations that, while serving as defence minister from June 2012 to August 2021, she solicited and received R2 million in bribes from defence contractor Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu.
Mapisa-Nqakula sought access to Sections B and C of the docket, which contain internal reports and the investigation diary. Section A usually contains the evidence.
Her legal team argued that withholding Sections B and C could obstruct access to potentially exculpatory information.
ALSO READ: Mapisa-Nqakula’s legal team accuses state of ‘hiding something’ in corruption case
The state, however, maintained that the contents were confidential.
The former defence minister also requested full disclosure of a separate docket tied to Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s contract fraud matter, including witness statements.
That case was struck off the roll last year after Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu invoked Section 342E of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), citing unreasonable delays in proceedings.
In his judgment, Judge Mokhine “Papi” Mosopa acknowledged that the Section A and B were disclosed to Mapisa-Nqakula’s legal team.
Section C as well as the entire Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu case docket, however, remained in contestation.
Mosopa explained that an investigation diary contains a chronological record of actions taken during an investigation, as well as instructions given to the investigating officer.
He highlighted that it was the state’s responsibility to justify why such disclosure should be withheld.
The judge emphasised that while the right to a fair trial is fundamental, the right to disclosure is not absolute.
He also referred to Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s pending representations to the national director of Public Prosecutions, highlighting that the matter had not yet been finalised.
This, Mosopa said, explained the state’s resistance to disclosing her case docket.
“What is holding back the finalisation of the representations is unknown at this stage,” the judge said.
He further noted the state’s claim that the military docket could not be disclosed due to ongoing investigations.
“It is understandable looking at the nature of the offence that Nombasa is facing in that matter and that the respondent at this stage wants to guard against interference in the investigations.”
Mosopa questioned the state’s inconsistency in granting Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu access to the docket while refusing the same to Mapisa-Nqakula.
“In my considered view, the disclosure of that docket is relevant for the applicant to prepare for her case in answer and defence considering that the respondent intend on using Nombasa as a section 204 witness.
“No privilege at this stage is claimed by the respondent against disclosure.”
However, despite these observations, the judge ruled that Mapisa-Nqakula’s legal team had failed to present prima facie facts justifying access to Section C of the docket.
He ordered the state to provide her legal team with progress reports on Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s pending representations but denied access to the investigation diary.
NOW READ: Mapisa-Nqakula being ‘punished’ for Phala Phala probe
Download our app