Judgement reserved in application by Parliament Speaker

The High Court in Pretoria is expected to make a ruling next Tuesday, 2 April. 

Mapisa-Nqakula is seeking to interdict the state from arresting her in an ongoing probe into claims that she solicited and received bribes of more than R2 million during her tenure as the Minister of Defense and Military Veterans.

This comes after the National Prosecuting Authority's (NPA) Investigating Directorate raided her Johannesburg home last week.

Makhosi Gwala, who is representing the respondents in the Speaker’s urgent bid, told the Court on Monday afternoon that the state never said they wanted to arrest the Speaker, but only asked that she speak with investigators at the Lyttleton Police station last Friday. 

"There is nothing that was ever said to the fact that we want to arrest your client, all that was said was to bring your client."

In rebuttal, defense lawyer Advocate Reginald Willis SC argued that not making an undertaking not to arrest Mapisa-Nqakula before 3 April, when her lawyer Stephen May would be available to accompany her, was tantamount to stripping her of the right to having legal representation of her choice.

But Gwala contended that in line with section 35 of the Constitution, which protects the rights of arrested, detained, and accused persons,  the defense's argument was premature. 

"At this stage, the applicant is neither arrested, is not detained, is not accused. At this stage, she is just a suspect. Section 35 is specific as to who has those rights. Sub-section 3 is specific to the accused."

Advocate Willis argued the state was being "delinquent" by abusing its authority while pursuing the Speaker, and failing to act within the law. 

"That's why they threatened us with section 40 because they will just arrest without a warrant. Continual threat, continual terror tactics. That's how they are treating the applicant, and it has to stop."

He asked the court to offer "protection" until judgement is handed down. 

"I don't know how your ladyship will deal with these because when we leave here we'll need some sort of protection. I'm sure Your Ladyship will reserve judgement."

Mapisa-Nqakula is asking to be summonsed to appear before court, and not be arrested. 

The state made an undertaking not to arrest the Speaker until judgement is handed down next week; however, it argued that acceding to the demands by Mapisa-Nqakula would set a dangerous precedent that would pave the way for suspects in any criminal matter to dictate how the state acts against them.

TRIAL BY MEDIA 

Mapisa-Nqakula in her founding affidavit, Mapisa-Nqakula argues that the media has been fed one-sided information about the case against her, while she remains in the dark. 

 The speaker wants access to the state's brief, including the police docket and witness statements. 

The allegations against her have been detailed in a statement by a Section 204 witness who, under this section of the Criminal Procedure Act,  may be granted immunity from prosecution for their evidence. 

On Monday, the speaker's legal team requested Judge Sulet Potterill to take a judicial peek at the state's evidence in the matter while arguing that some of the case details, which their client was yet to be informed about, were already in the public domain through media leaks. 

“They have leaked their evidence to the media, and they have continued to leak their evidence to the media. The media now knows things that the media that the accused herself, they won’t tell," Willis told the court. 

He argued that the state has no basis to contend it would prejudiced should Mapisa-Nqakula be granted access to the evidence, adding that the 204 statement was already in the media, however, while the state had acceded to giving them a copy of the statement - they had not done so.  

Gwala, on behalf of the state, vehemently denied the allegation: "They talk about us leaking the section 204 statement, but they don't tell us who leaked [it]. Your Ladyship, we take a dim view of these allegations."

Gwala further contended that any reputational damage the speaker may have suffered due to media reports will not be exacerbated by her appearance in court. 

The state has argued that Mapisa-Nqakula has failed to demonstrate that she will suffer any irreparable harm.  

ALSO READ