Eight accused, including former Provincial Agriculture Department employees, service providers and companies through their defence lawyers have informed Judge Nompumelelo Gusha of their plan to bring an application for acquittal. This comes after Judge Gusha on Thursday 23 February 2023 found some evidence produced by the state in a three-month trial to be inadmissible.

ALSO READ: Evidence against Gupta associates ruled as inadmissible

Gusha ruled that some of the documents produced in court as evidence failed to pass the tests of originality and authenticity.  She referred to the documents from the so-called Gupta lieutenant Iqbal Sharma's Nulane Investments company, including the R8 million tax invoice, a contract between the Agriculture Department and Nulane, and also Delloite's due diligence report.

She said the Nulane tax invoice and the department's deviation document, crafted by Shadrack Cezule, were admissible, but the contract between the department and Nulane and a due diligence report were ruled inadmissible.  Judge Gusha said all the evidence the state relied upon to prove the authenticity, came to nothing.

The trial has since been postponed to Friday 3 March 2023.  

"As already alluded to, all other documents provisionally admitted into the record remained copies, even after the state closed the case without the state tendering into evidence the originals thereof."

"Throughout the case for the state, the central theme was that the originals of the disputed documents were either lost during the relocation to the Glen College of Agriculture or that, despite a diligent search, some could not be located."

"Having carefully considered the evidence tendered so far, I am not satisfied that the originals of these documents are either lost or that a diligent search was conducted. Nothing in the evidence presented by the state suggests that a bona fide and/or thorough search for these documents was conducted."

"Most of the witnesses for the state, when confronted with the whereabouts of the originals, simply pled ignorance, and those who ventured to proffer an opinion fell back on the Glen relocation."

Judge Gusha said the rationale for the originality rule is palpable: to avoid error and falsification.

She said it is for that reason that the mere say-so of the officials that the documents are lost and that, despite a diligent search, the originals could not be located will not suffice, especially in the absence of any demonstrable evidence before the court of such a diligent search.

"When the authenticity of documents is in issue, as it is in this case, the rules to prove the same are trite and need no restating here. In this regard, too, the state’s case, unfortunately, suffers the same misfortune and does not pass muster."

"All the evidence they sought to rely on to prove the authenticity came to nought (save for the evidence of Mr Cezula to the effect that he was present when accused three allegedly appended her signature on the deviation submission, which is a matter of evaluation); none of the witnesses who testified was present when the signatures on the documents were allegedly appended, and no handwriting expert evidence was adduced to authenticate said signatures."

"As for the documents whose purported authors testified during these proceedings, even they did not authenticate the documents they authored because those, by their evidence, were altered.  In this regard, the Deloitte report comes to mind, as well as the respective evidence of Ms Motshumi and Mr Thubisi. Accordingly, all the other copies of the documents sought to rely upon by the state are now, with regard to the evidence leading up to this point, ruled inadmissible," Judge Gusha added.

It's unclear how the proceedings or the outcomes of this adjacent trial could influence the proceedings in the original 2018 Estina case, where some of the suspects, including Ronica Ragavan, Peter Mbana Thabethe and Seipati Dhlamini, stand accused of varying charges in that case.

ALSO READ: More suspects added to Estina case, including companies

Former Minister, MEC for Agriculture and current ANC Member of Parliament(MP), Mosebenzi Zwane including current Head (HOD) of Provincial Department, Takisi Jantjie Masiteng, also stand accused in that case where millions of rands are said to have been looted and stolen.

Masiteng is among 21 state witnesses who gave their testimony in court during the Estina adjacent trial.

Whilst testifying from the stand Masiteng refused to be drawn in on whether the Estina adjacent project, or Mohuma Mobung, was irregular, or if there was anything fraudulent about the controversial project.

Masiteng told Judge Gusha, during cross-examination by the defence, that he would not say for certain that there was any fraudulent activity in the 2011/12 project.

Masiteng mostly gave insight into the department's policies and documents handed over to the police during a search and seizure operation.

He told judge Gusha that some of the documents handed over to the investigating officers included two contracts between the department and the company in question.

ALSO READ: Free State HOD refuses to say Estina was fraudulent

Meanwhile, Zwane and former Free State officials, including then MEC for Agriculture, Mamiki Qabathe, were implicated by whistle-blowers and the DA's Free State chairperson, Roy Jankielsohn.

OFM News previously reported that more than R220 million earmarked for Estina to assist 80 upcoming farmers in Vrede was looted, without beneficiaries seeing a single cent. Testimonies made to the Zondo Commission brought to light how the provincial department made a R30 million up-front payment to Estina without any work having been done or services rendered.

OFM News