Sue Blaine
The web of intrigue surrounding the three SBV heists became more complex on Monday when an attorney gave evidence in the Durban high court.
Chris van Heerden was testifying in the trial concerning a R7,4-million robbery before Justice Vivienne Niles-Duner. Six men have pleaded not guilty to robbery with aggravating circumstances, two attempted murder charges and four of illegal possession of arms and ammunition.
Van Heerden said he had been instructed to represent one of the accused, Shane Pillay, who was arrested on the day of the robbery, May 8 last year.
He said he had first represented Pillay in the Durban magistrate's court on Monday, May 11. The hearing had been postponed to Thursday, May 14, for a bail application.
Van Heerden said there had not seemed to be anyone else instructed to represent Pillay. However, on the Wednesday he had received a telephone call and a faxed letter from Chatsworth attorney Nugalen Pillay, who told him he was taking over Shane Pillay's case.
Nugalen "Nuggs" Pillay is one of 19 men arrested in connection with the R31-million SBV heist. He is on bail and was in court on Monday, taking notes.
Van Heerden said there was an extended tussle over who would represent Shane Pillay, who twice chose him over Nuggs Pillay - and twice withdrew van Heerden's mandate.
Both times he asked his client why his instructions had been withdrawn. Shane Pillay said Nuggs Pillay, "some other attorneys" and a number of police captains, all of whom were armed, had come to see him. They had told Shane Pillay that it was "wrong" for Van Heerden to represent him and he should terminate his mandate.
On the second occasion they had been accompanied by senior advocate Kessie Naidu, attorney Shashi Maharaj, Sivan Samuel and "another advocate".
These visits had taken place without his knowledge and while he was the attorney of record, Van Heerden said.
Pillay, on the first occasion, said he had not been assaulted or threatened, but had been intimidated into agreeing because of the policemen's weapons.
"He said it was as good as if they had held a gun to his head," Van Heerden told Judge Niles-Duner.
Shane Pillay told him on the morning of the bail application on May 14 that he had withdrawn his instructions because he "feared for his life".
"He said I must understand the position he is in and that he must remain with the other attorneys. He said he had done it (withdrawn Van Heerden's instructions) for fear of his life," Van Heerden said.
He said the first time investigating officer Martin Hall had found out that Nuggs Pillay was to represent Shane Pillay, he "looked shocked" and said he would have to organise protection for Shane Pillay. At that stage Pillay had apparently indicated that he would plead guilty and Van Heerden said he understood Pillay was to be used as a so-called "accomplice witness".