[ Home ] [ Speeches & statements ]

The charges
Ms M.J. Mashele, together with 11 other people, were arrested on 13 May 1993, after an intense investigation by members of the Organised Crime Unit, and charged for allegedly being involved in armed robberies and motor vehicle thefts. In total, 101 counts of assorted crimes have been brought against the syndicate (of whom, Ms Mashele was allegedly the leader).0

Allegations
Ms Mashele claims that since her arrest, she was detained, without a trial. She is of the opinion that her constitutional right to a speedy trial has been infringed upon and that the State has conspired to keep her in jail. Minister of Justice, Dullah Omar, therefore, requested a thorough investigation into the case of Ms Mashele.

The Department of Justice would like to take this opportunity to place on record all of the facts involved in the case regarding Ms M J Mashele.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Pretoria, was approached for comment in this regard. According to him, Ms Mashele is not an "awaiting trial prisoner" in the real sense of the word. She was on trial for the best part of her five years of confinement - a fact that she conveniently prefers not to mention. During this period, she brought several unsuccessful bail applications, only to protract the trial.

With regard to Ms Mashele's trial, a detailed affidavit was obtained form Adv. Uuygens, who was appointed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Pretoria, to handle the prosecution. According to the affidavit, Ms Mashele and her co-accused appeared in court on 14 May 1993, for the first time since their arrest. After this, the case was postponed several times, in order for them to obtain legal representatives. After their legal representatives were changed several times, the case was postponed to 22 July 1993 for plea bargaining. On 22 July 1993, the defence did not plead, but asked for further particulars and contested the charge sheet. On 31 August 1993, the defence did not continue, but lodged further applications, including an application for bail.

Since August 1993 until November 1994, the case was placed on the roll for trial on several occasions. Each time the matter could not proceed due to several changes in the accused's legal representation and further bail applications. On 30 November 1994, one of the accused escaped, but the case continued in his absence from January to March 1995. The days reserved for the trial in 1995 were, in the opinion of the advocate, utilised as far as possible. On 13 October 1995, one of the accused indicated that he wanted to change his legal representative, and the case was postponed to 29 April 1996.

The case continued until September 1996, during which time a second accused escaped. At the beginning of October 1996 ms Mashele's legal representative had taken ill and was not fit to continue until 7 April 1997. She refused to accept the services of a replacement and insisted that the matter be postponed due to the fact that she wanted her current legal representative to continue with the matter. The case continued from 7 April 1997 to 13 May 1997.

In the interim, Ms Mashele lodged another unsuccessful bail application, and took this decision on appeal. Negotiations for the changing of plea also started. On 12 December 1997, indications were that the matter would be finalised by the changing of pleas. The magistrate was, however, not available and the matter had to be postponed to 17 February 1998. On this date Ms Mashela's partners in crime pleaded guilty and were given suspended sentences. The matter could have been finalised, but Ms Mashele applied for a separation of trials. This application was strenuously opposed by the prosecutor, since the granting thereof would further delay the conclusion of the matter. Ms Mashele's trial was hence postponed, to prepare new charges against her.

The legal consequence of the separation was that a new trial had to be instituted and a new senior advocate was appointed to handle the matter. She (the new advocate) then decided to condense the trial to 32 charges, instead of 101 charges, as she was entitled to do. The matter has now been postponed to February 1999.

It should be noted that ms Mashele has lodged several bail applications and appeals as far as the full bench of the Transvaal Provincial Division. She has been legally represented from the outset by the most competent lawyers, however, the court has found that bail must be denied on each application. All steps to expedite this trial have been taken by the prosecution. A number of the Supreme Court Judges have found the delay in finalising this matter, to be the fault of the accused. The dates for hearings which have been arranged have always been the first possible dates which suited all the parties concerned. An independent study of the case record will clearly show that no blame can be laid at the door of the prosecution in delaying this matter.

In the wake of the evidence reported above, allegations made by Ms Mashele, that she is detained without trial, that the State has "conspired" to keep her in jail and that her constitutional rights have been infringed, can therefore, be nullified. Ms Mashele has, in the opinion of the Justice Department, exercised her rights fully.

Letter to Ms Mashele from Minister Omar
In his letter to Ms Mashele, Minister Omar stated, inter alia, that while he appreciated her situation, he was not entitled to interfere with the court's decision regarding bail, or the placement of cases on the roll. With regard to the delays, he stated that no irregularities could be found, other than to say that she is in the hands of the justice process, and that the law must be allowed to follow its course. He regretted, however, that the whole matter had to start de novo ( a new trial) in February 1999. He suggested that Ms Mashele and her legal representative do everything in their power to prevent any further delays.

ENQUIRIES:
Amanda Haasbroek Tel:(012)3239302x2184 Cell: 082 460 7922
Rasiga Naicher Tel: (012)323 9302 x2189 Fax: (012) 321 8291
<EOD>