Independent Online

Tuesday, July 5, 2022

Like us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterView weather by locationView market indicators

Prosecutor in tax fraud case misrepresented himself under oath, says accused

A tax fraud accused is questioning how he and his co-accused can be prosecuted by a prosecutor who was found to have misrepresented himself under oath. Picture: File

A tax fraud accused is questioning how he and his co-accused can be prosecuted by a prosecutor who was found to have misrepresented himself under oath. Picture: File

Published Apr 8, 2022

Share

Pretoria - Tax fraud accused Maxwell Mavudzi is questioning how he and his co-accused can be prosecuted by a prosecutor who was found to have misrepresented himself under oath.

Their trial returns to the Johannesburg High Court next week.

Story continues below Advertisement

Mavudzi says the prosecutor misrepresented himself when obtaining a warrant of arrest against him nearly seven years ago.

His daughter, Chanice Kemphorst-Mavudzi, has embarked on a fierce legal battle outside of her father’s criminal trial to try to get justice for her dad.

She said the Legal Practice Council as well as the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) were trying to cover up for Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Skumbuzo Majola, who she said “a court has found to have lied” earlier under oath in a bid to obtain a warrant of arrest for her father in 2015.

Acting Judge BM Gilbert issued a judgment in September last year in an application by Mavudzi to have his 2015 warrant of arrest overturned, in which he found that Majola had made certain misrepresentations.

Although the judge turned down Mavudzi’s application (a decision against which Mavudzi is set on appealing), the judge ordered that a copy of his judgment be forwarded to the director of public prosecutions for further investigation on whether Majola was guilty of any wrongdoing.

At the time, Mavudzi argued before Gilbert that Majola had made certain misrepresentations during his failed bail application before another court presided over by an acting Judge du Plessis, and which led to him being denied bail.

Story continues below Advertisement

Majola obtained the initial warrant of arrest at the instance of the investigating officer in the criminal trial, referred to in court papers as Mr Gobozi.

It emerged that the warrant was obtained following affidavits by Sars officials, which resulted in the criminal trial against Mavudzi and his co-accused.

But the problem, Mavudzi told the court, was that the affidavits were obtained about three weeks after the warrant for his arrest was issued, thus Majola could not have relied on these affidavits, as he claimed.

Story continues below Advertisement

Majola, on the other hand, insisted that he had relied on the facts given by Gobozi when he applied for the warrant.

Judge du Plessis found the warrant of arrest to be sound, which was also a subject of various appeals by Mavudzi.

He argued before Judge Gilbert that Majola had misled the court who heard and refused his bail application. Majola never explained himself in the proceedings before Judge Gilbert.

Story continues below Advertisement

Judge Gilbert remarked that in light of the serious allegations made against Majola, it would be expected that he would explain himself.

“Instead, advocate Majola did not give any version under oath in the proceedings before me.”

He also said that Majola did not take the court into his confidence regarding his version.

Pretoria News

Share