A State witness who was part of the management at eThekwini’s City Integrity and Investigations Unit (CIIU) is set to continue with his testimony in 2026 at the R320 million fraud case involving Zandile Gumede, the former eThekwini mayor, and 21 others.

The accused face fraud, corruption, money laundering, and contravention of the Municipal Finance Management Act and the Municipal Systems Act, related to the R320 million Durban Solid Waste (DSW) tender.

The witness, who cannot be named, was told by Judge Sharmaine Balton that he would be called next year to continue with his testimony.

The decision came after a long meeting in chambers with all the legal counsel in the case. It is currently not clear what might have led to the decision. The media cannot name any witnesses in the case. 

When the matter proceeded, advocate Jimmy Howse SC, representing eThekwini deputy head of Supply Chain Management, Sandile Ngcobo, briefly continued with his cross-examination; however, he did not finish. 

“We would have to stop at this point. The witness could be called next year,” Judge Balton said. 

State prosecutor advocate Reshma Athmaram told the court that a trial-within-a-trial regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained from the cellphone of former city manager of eThekwini, Sipho Nzuza, will commence on Monday, as the matter will not proceed for the rest of the week due to the witness’s unavailability. 

Nzuza’s cellphone was seized by police on March 10, 2020, after he presented himself and his lawyers at the Durban Central police station following a warrant of arrest for the R320 million tender fraud case. 

Nzuza, through his lawyer,  advocate Griffiths Madonsela SC, argues that the evidence is inadmissible, claiming his phone was seized under false pretences and that he never consented to the search for investigations.

A retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks) testified that he relied on Section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act to seize the phone.

He asserted that this section permitted confiscation if the phone played a role in the commission of a crime, justifying the urgency of the seizure. 

When questioned about why he didn’t inform Nzuza’s lawyers of his intention to seize the phone, he claimed not to know the lawyer’s location, despite acknowledging her presence in the vicinity.

 When the trial-within-a-trial proceeds on Monday, a new witness is expected to take the stand. 

nomonde.zondi@inl.co.za

Source link