DISCHARGE APPLICATION: Mapisa-Nqakula trial: State ‘proves millions changed hands, but not the quid pro quo’

In about a week, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula will likely know her fate in her R4.55m corruption and money laundering trial, after her lawyers argued that the State’s evidence was too weak to sustain the case against her.

On Monday, Mapisa-Nqakula’s legal team asked the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria to discharge her under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, arguing that the State had failed to present enough evidence for her to be convicted.

At the heart of the application is businesswoman and SANDF contractor Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, who the State alleges paid about R4.55-million in bribes to Mapisa-Nqakula while she was defence minister.

The defence argues that even though the State has presented evidence about money allegedly changing hands, it has not shown what Mapisa-Nqakula was supposed to do in return.

“There is absolutely no evidence at all by Nombasa that she paid the money to the accused in order for the accused to do anything or not to do anything or something to benefit Nombasa or any other person,” Siyabulela Mapoma SC argued.

During the course of the trial, Judge Mashudu Munzhelele appeared to be taken aback by Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s admission that she paid Mapisa-Nqakula millions, asking, “Did you pay because you were expecting to gain favours from the accused?”

Mapisa-Nqakula faces 12 counts of corruption and one count of money laundering relating to her tenure as defence minister between 2016 and 2019. She has pleaded not guilty.

The defence argued that proving corruption required more than proving that money was paid, and that the State must show that the money was given and received in exchange for a particular action or favour.

“The element of intention by both the giver and the alleged recipient of the various amounts has simply not been established…One of the elements of the offence is lacking,” Mapoma said.

The defence also questioned the reliability of Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s evidence, describing her as the key witness on the alleged payments.

“All the witnesses that were called by the State contradicted her in material respects,” the defence submitted.

The defence argued that while the law allows a person to be convicted on the evidence of a single witness, courts must be especially careful when dealing with such evidence.

This caution was even more important in Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s case, the defence argued, because the State had indicated that she was a Section 204 witness and, as such, it was important for the court to treat her evidence with caution.

“There is a need to be cautious in evaluating the evidence of a single witness, particularly one seeking indemnity,” Mapoma argued.