Overturned Cholota extradition will not affect Ace Magashule asbestos trial - NPA

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) says the Bloemfontein High Court judgment upholding Moroadi Cholota’s special plea of lack of jurisdiction will not impact the trial of the rest of the accused.

It will meanwhile consider its options, including possibly appealing against the judgment. 

“The NPA will specifically consider options to appeal considering the potential impact of the judgment in respect of the case against Ms Cholota, and broader extradition processes,” NPA spokesperson Mthunzi Mhaga said.

He explained that it should be noted that this judgment has no bearing on the trial against the other accused that is expected to resume on Wednesday (June 4) as Cholota was an accused person and not a state witness.

The NPA remains confident in the strength of its case against the accused and said it was ready to proceed when the trial resumes.

“The members of the prosecuting team always acted with the highest standards of ethical conduct, guided by the evidence and information available at any given time,” Mhaga said.

The court found on Tuesday that it has no jurisdiction to try the former Free State premier Ace Magashule’s personal assistant in the R255-million asbestos case, as her extradition from the US was unlawful.

The judge upheld her special plea regarding the asbestos removal tender following a trial-within-a trial to ascertain whether Cholota’s extradition process by the South African authorities was done lawfully.

While a Free State director of Public Prosecutions applied for Cholota’s extradition, Judge Philip Loubser found that this power lies with the Justice Minister and with the National Prosecuting Authority. Thus, he said, the extradition was not done lawfully and it is not valid.

“This court does not have the power to try you. You are free to leave,” the judge told Cholota.

Cholota was one of 18 accused in the high-profile trial where the accused are facing a host of charges relating to alleged fraud, corruption and money laundering. All of the accused had pleaded not guilty and denied any involvement in the allegations against them.

Cholota was studying in the US at the time of her extradition and was at first regarded as a state witness, before it was decided to add her as accused no 17 to the criminal trial. In challenging her extradition, Cholota claimed that the State had lied or misrepresented to the US authorities that there was a case for her to answer in South Africa.

In delivering his judgment, Judge Loubser said there was no need to go into these arguments, as he found the extradition process was wrong in law. The only two witnesses who testified during the extradition challenge were Hawks officials. The Cholota camp did not call any witnesses.

In its agreement to extradite her, the US made it clear in its extradition notice that they were certain of the charges which she was not to face, which included money laundering. Yet, Judge Loubser said, when it came to plead against the charges, even those excluded by the extradition certificate were put to her.

He questioned this move by the prosecution and said “it remains a mystery” why those charges were put to her.

Cholota was out on R2500 bail after her arrest in the US in August last year.

Cape Times