Judgment reserved in Thoshan Panday’s bid to have World Cup corruption case dismissed - IOL

Thoshan Panday and his co-accused applied to have the criminal case against them struck off the roll over delays was heard in the Durban High Court on Friday. Judgement was reserved.

Judgment has been reserved in Thoshan Panday’s application to have the criminal case against him and his co-accused dismissed over alleged unreasonable delays in the Durban High Court on Friday. 

Panday filed court papers calling for judicial intervention and for the case to be dropped. The application before the High Court has been brought in terms of section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act. This empowers a court to investigate delays in criminal proceedings and determine whether they have become unreasonable.

Panday is among nine accused appearing in the Durban High Court on fraud and corruption charges about the 2010 Soccer World Cup.

The state alleges that he was effectively in control of several entities which had received payments from the South African Police Services (SAPS) amounting to approximately R47 million, owing to a corrupt relationship formed with members of the Supply Chain Management Division of the SAPS.

The accused include former provincial commissioner, Lieutenant General Mmamonye Ngobeni, former SAPS Colonel Navin Madhoe, and former SAPS Captain Ashwin Narainpershad. They face racketeering offences, including fraud, corruption, money laundering and forgery, allegedly committed between March 2009 and April 2010.

The other accused are Panday’s mother, Arevenda Panday, his wife Privisha Panday, his sister Kajal Ishwarkumar, and his brother-in-law, Seveesh Maharaj Ishwarkumar, as well as Panday’s personal assistant, Tasleem Rahiman.

The defence was represented by three senior counsel: Advocates Mike Hellens, Jay Naidoo and Jimmy Howse, and Attorney Ravindra Maniklall.  The central issue raised by the defence is the prolonged and, in its submission, unreasonable delay associated with the State’s disclosure of information and material required to prepare the defence properly.

“The defence first formally sought further information in April 2021. Over the years that followed, a series of further requests were made, and the matter was repeatedly adjourned in an attempt to resolve the outstanding disclosure issues,” the court document states.

“Ultimately, the accused approached the High Court for an order compelling the State to provide the outstanding information. That application succeeded, and in June 2024 the High Court ordered the State to provide the information identified in the order within 21 days.”

The document claims that the State thereafter sought leave to appeal aspects of that order. Importantly, the defence contends that certain material which the State itself accepted the accused were entitled to receive fell outside the ambit of the appeal and nevertheless remained outstanding.

“The defence case is therefore not based simply upon the passage of time. It is based upon the history of the proceedings, the repeated attempts by the accused to obtain disclosure, the orders made by the court, the subsequent appeal process and the continuing effect of the outstanding disclosure on the accused’s ability to prepare for trial,” the document states.

“The defence case is therefore not based simply upon the passage of time. It is based upon the history of the proceedings, the repeated attempts by the accused to obtain disclosure, the orders made by the court, the subsequent appeal process and the continuing effect of the outstanding disclosure on the accused’s ability to prepare for trial,” the document states.

The accused contend that material central to the preparation of their defence remains outstanding, thereby directly affecting their ability to prepare properly for trial.

“The relief sought is an order in terms of section 342A(3)(c) striking the criminal proceedings from the roll and directing that the prosecution may not be resumed or instituted afresh without the written instruction of the Director of Public Prosecutions,” the document states.

Talita Louw, Senior State Advocate with the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) within the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), dismissed allegations that the state was not ready for the case to go on trial. She said the state has been ready since day one to proceed. 

Louw told the court that the state disclosed the information required to the defence team  including 31 interceptions and their transcriptions. Louw said some of the information had to be sought from Crime Intelligence. 

She said they sought to protect the information and informants and are concerned about the harm that can be done if the information was not treated sensitively. 

“We cannot allow them to have blanket access to the documents. We asked the defence to sign a memorandum of understanding to protect the data. We came to the party. We offered solutions. They don't want to work with us. If one looks at the magnitude of that appeal and the consequences if that appeal is not heard, it can have far-reaching implications on every other single interception in South Africa," Louw told the court. 

Louw said the defence also did not comply with court orders and timelines, and that they were willing to give them a laptop with the coded software to listen to the recordings. She said they were also willing to give the defence the recording with conditions.