The legal battle between the state and Moroadi Cholota in the R255 million asbestos corruption case seems far from over.

The state has refuted claims that Cholota, who is accused number 17 in the high-profile scandal, was treated unfairly and that her extradition from the United States was unlawful.

In a surprising courtroom move, Cholota’s legal team has requested a trial within a trial to contest both the court’s jurisdiction and the legality of her extradition.

Cholota, who previously served as personal assistant to former Free State Premier Ace Magashule, now stands alongside her ex-boss as a co-accused in the graft case. The dispute signals fresh delays in a trial that has already stretched for years.

Trial within a trial

The gloves are off, and the legal tussle has begun between the state and the defence. The state told the court that if it granted the trial within a trial, it would prove that Cholota is not credible and that claims that she was tortured in the US are far from the truth because she was instead wrapped in cotton wool.

The State asserts that there is no basis for the claim that her extradition was unlawful.

State prosecutor Adv. Johan De Nysschen says, “With all due respect, she says firstly that the conduct of the detective while they were in the us engaging with her amounted to unfair, to such an extent that she was tortured, intimidated, I say in my heart of arguments, tortured to do what? With all due respect, she said nothing.”

The defence has lambasted the state’s opposition to the application for a trial within a trial, and argued that the state is neglecting the principle of law.

Legal representative for Moroadi Cholota Adv. Loyiso Makapela says, “There’s no authority to support their position. What they wish to do in this submission that we just heard is to unduly influence the court into forming a prior opinion about what is going to happen in the trial within the trial, and that is impermissible. If they’ve got anything to state to this court about anything that happened in America, that should happen with a trial within a trial. If they have bundles of authority, then those bundles should be submitted in the trial within a trial.”

The state argued that Cholota has in-depth knowledge of certain allegations, and that’s why she was initially approached to be a state witness.

“They could have been way more harsher with her and still would have been within the bounds of the law. I put in my heart all the leniency they showed towards this accused.”

The defence called the state’s arguments a modus operandi to make a mockery of the court.

Adv. Loyiso Makapela says, “The only position or support for Mr De Nysschen is Mr De Nysschen. There’s no law, no principle, there’s nothing in the commentary that supports anything that he says. And so on that basis, we wish for this court not to be made a mockery and that the legal principles ought to be respected regardless of the accused. It’s quite clear that the state holds a very particular and very negative opinion of accused number 17, and it is unsurprisingly therefore that what we contend in the trial within a trial has happened.”

Judge Phillip Loubser remarks that the asbestos trial might take two to three years to be finalised.

The court is expected to deliver its ruling on the application for a trial within a trial on Friday.