Safa's Jordaan and Hluyo challenge fraud allegations amid ongoing legal turmoil and delays

5 Dec 2024

The pair, alongside publication relations company boss Trevor Neethling, made their second appearance in court since their arrests in November.

South African Football Association (Safa) president Danny Jordaan, as well as the national soccer body’s chief of finance, Gronie Hluyo, intend to argue that their case of alleged fraud and theft to the tune of R1.3-million be thrown out of court.

Jordaan, Hluyo and their co-accused, Grit Communications boss Trevor Neethling, returned to the Palm Ridge Magistrate’s Court on Thursday, 5 December 2024 after their first appearance last month. The trio are currently out on bail of R20,000 each.

Their matter was brief as it was postponed to 10 December. However, the legal representative of Jordaan and Hluyo, Norman Arendse, outlined that they intended to argue that because of another ongoing legal battle between Safa and the State, there may be a delay in the outcome of this particular case.

Safa and Jordaan approached the courts to review the merits of the Hawks’ raid at Safa House in March, an action which they said was “unlawful and malicious”. The matter is currently being aired at the Gauteng Division of the High Court.

The Hawks’ operation in March was the result of criminal charges being laid by Willie Mooka, a former Safa national executive committee member, in 2020. His actions led to his departure from South African soccer’s mother body.

Arendse said in court that he was acting on the instructions of Victor Nkwashu, Jordaan’s main legal representative.

Fears of reputational damage

Arendse said that when they were next in court, Jordaan and Hluyo intended to have the matter struck off the roll, citing fears that the potentially lengthy proceedings of this matter may cause reputational damage to his clients, even if they were ultimately found to be innocent.

Jordaan and Hluyo’s legal representatives said they would divulge the crux of their argument on 10 December, but that it was essentially based on Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act. It reads as follows: “A court before which criminal proceedings are pending shall investigate any delay in the completion of proceedings which appears to the court to be unreasonable and which could cause substantial prejudice to the prosecution, the accused or his/her legal adviser, the State or a witness.”

However, the State struck back, saying Arendse’s representation of Danny Jordaan was a conflict of interest, with Arendse saying in court that he had been caught off guard by this claim, and that it was designed to embarrass him.

“The matter has been postponed to 10 December, when the court will be hearing two separate applications. One by the State, where we are alleging that the lawyer representing Mr Jordaan is conflicted,” said National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson Phindi Mjonondwane after the proceedings.

“We will be bringing such evidence before court, for it to take a decision. If it finds that Arendse is indeed conflicted, Jordaan will have to find another legal representative,” Mjonondwane said.

“As the State we received information that Arendse performs legal duties for Safa, who is the complainant in this matter. Obviously, we cannot bring a case through the media; much of that evidence will be divulged in court,” added Mjonondwane.

“The second application is brought by the accused persons. They are citing unreasonable delays. So they are bringing an application in terms of Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act,” she said.

‘Unreasonable delays’

As it stands, Neethling is not part of Jordaan and Hluyo’s argument on unreasonable delays. But his lawyer James Ndebele said it was possible they could also join before their next court appearance. Ndebele also reiterated his client’s belief that he was just a pawn in Safa politics.

“Services were rendered by accused No 2 insofar as his contract, that was concluded between himself and the organisation. He is just being used as a scapegoat in the dispute by former Safa officials, who now take issue with the current president. I cannot say much, but substantive evidence was provided to the State (to this effect),” Ndebele told journalists.

This court appearance almost did not take place, though. The Department of Public Works and Infrastructure is responsible for settling the court’s bills with the City of Ekurhuleni. It failed to pay the electricity bill on time, disrupting operations at the East Rand court late last week and earlier this week.

The department cited technical difficulties with its payment system, but it has since paid and the power has been restored. DM

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...

South Africa

Fears of reputational damage

‘Unreasonable delays’