Latest / Drive with John Perlman / Sibanyoni's assets frozen Kaizer Kganyago, NPA Spokesperson

Transcript

Sibanyoni's assets frozen Kaizer Kganyago, NPA Spokesperson · Drive with John Perlman

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Let's focus our attention now on this taxi boss and businessman.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Joe Ferrari Sibaglioni has been in the news quite a bit.
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: His appearance at the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry. And of course,
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: he is facing charges in court. But the latest news
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: in is that the NPA has frozen 99 million rand
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: in assets belonging to Mr. Sibaglioni and others. Let's get
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: a take on this. and welcome Kaiser Kanyako, spokesperson for
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: the NPA.
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: Mr.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Kanyako, welcome and thanks very much for your time. In
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: order to take this step, what kind of threshold did
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: you need to reach? In other words, at what point
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: can you say we are justified in doing this and
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: that this would withstand legal challenge?
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: Thank you very much and good afternoon to your listeners.
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: We have got investigations that have started when the matters
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: were reported. And then we then brought that evidence to
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: the judge at the Middleback Bumalanga High Court. And then
• 1:00
  Speaker 2: on the basis of that, the judge was able to say,
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: you have got a case to prove, and therefore I'm
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: able to grant you the permission to freeze those properties
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: because I can see the evidence of the work that
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: you have done already.
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: Some people would wonder, if somebody is already in court,
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: and I'm assuming that the basis on which you approach
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: the judge is related to the matters before the court,
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: I think, sitting in Delmas, they would wonder why you
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: are not required to wait until the matter has run
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: its course.
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you must understand that there are two issues. The
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: organized crime unit deals with the crime itself, and then
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: the asset forfeiture unit deals have to now come and
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: deal with the proceeds of crime. Therefore, if they then
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: wait for the matters to be finalized, by that time,
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: all of these things will have dissipated and they will
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: not find anything. Therefore, that is why this order is
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: a provisional order. which then says you are not going
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: to use that until we are sure that the measures
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: have been finalized. Because you remember we are using POCA
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: to do this, and they said one of the objectives
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: of POCA is to deprive persons of the proceeds and
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: benefits of crime. Therefore, it is important to do it
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: timeously and be in a position to then, because we
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: are not disadvantaging them at the moment, because they can
• 2:30
  Speaker 2: continue to use those properties, they can continue to use
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: the cars, but they cannot transfer them.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: Okay, so it's a freezing, it's not a confiscation.
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: No, it's not a confiscation as yet, because the confiscation
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: will then be determined by the outcomes of the court.
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: Okay, so in terms of the ability or the rights
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: of somebody who has their assets frozen in this way
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: to appeal the process, how does that work? I mean,
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: could this itself become the subject of related court proceedings?
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: It's possible, and it has happened before, because when we
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: do this order, we do it expatriate, without the knowledge
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: of the people involved. Because if you give them heads
• 3:19
  Speaker 2: up about it, then they will quickly transfer these properties
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: and so on. And therefore, now that they've been served,
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: they were served today, therefore they then have an opportunity
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: to decide whether they want to go and challenge this order.
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: That is why the order is provisional.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: In terms then of the evidence that gets led in
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: the court, presumably whatever you brought in regard to the freezing,
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: none of this counts as validation of that evidence in
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: the court itself as the matter is heard. This will
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: all have to be argued afresh and subject to the
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: evidentiary rules of a regular court case.
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: No, definitely. The matter that will be dealt with here
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: will just be about the orders themselves to not go
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: into too much of the merit of the criminal activities
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: that we are investigating.
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: Can you give us an idea, not necessarily with specific
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: reference to Mr. Sibanyone and others appearing with him, Mr. Khandiako,
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: but what kind of... You referred to POCA, which is
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: the Proceeds of Organized Criminal Activity Act, if I'm not mistaken.
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: What level of proof is required to demonstrate that, in fact,
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: criminal activity has taken place?
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: When we go to court, we then have to give
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: evidence that we have so far. that we cannot put
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: out in the public space until it is presented in court.
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: But for the purposes of being in front of a judge,
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: therefore the judge has to weigh whatever information that we
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: have around our investigation. That is why this thing is
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: done in collaboration with the South African Police Services who
• 5:11
  Speaker 2: are doing the investigation and our organized crime units. Therefore,
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: all of the evidence comes from these units. and they
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: are able to then be presented to the judge. And
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: they've got to be compelling because the judge can decide,
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: I don't want to give you this because the evidence
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: that you have before me is not enough.
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: In the course of this process, I mean, is it
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: all done on firstly written representation? I mean, again, you
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: don't have to talk specifically about this case, but this
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: has happened before. Is there quite an extended cross-examination, if
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: I could call it that, of the evidence by the judge?
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: And is that auditory? I mean, is that in court?
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it is not in court. It is something that
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: happens in the chamber. So we put a document and
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: we write it down for the judge, and then the
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: judge will then decide if he still wants to ask
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: questions and engage with our legal representative, he or she
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: will say so, and then we'll go and interact with
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: the judge in chambers, and then that decision is made.
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: Would you be able to tell us if in this
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: specific case that further and higher level of engagement was
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: called for by the judge?
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: No, I don't want to go there because I don't
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: want the comparison issue in the later states. Let me
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: not go there.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Kaiser Kanyako. Spokesperson for the NPA
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: coming up for seven minutes now to four o'clock.