SAFA president, Danny Jordaan and his co-accused appeared at Palm Ridge Magistrate Court this morning. MaMkhize backed up Jordaan despite accusations of fraud and corruption.
(The Post News)- Danny Jordaan, the head of SAFA, and Gronie Hluyo, his co-accused, were cleared of three charges by the State. Nonetheless, Jordaan and Hluyo will continue to face three fraud counts and one conspiracy charge.
Jordaan has indicated that he plans to have the subject removed from the list if his application was denied. South African Football Association (SAFA) manager Danny Jordaan and his co-accused, SAFA chief finance officer Gronie Hluyo, have had their theft charges dropped by the state. Jordaan is still charged with three counts of fraud and one count of conspiracy to conduct fraud, nevertheless.
When Jordaan, Hluyo, and journalist-turned-entrepreneur Trevor Neethling appeared before the Palm Ridge Specialized Commercial Crimes Court on Friday, the State made this revelation. The charge sheet was updated, and the three theft accusations against Jordaan and Hluyo were dropped, according to state advocate Moagi Malebati.
Prior to the charge sheet being changed, the State accused Jordaan of stealing R888 339.05 after SAFA reportedly paid him after he and Hluyo made false statements. Malebati informed the court that three counts of fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit fraud remained against both defendants.
The State claims that when Jordaan was accused of rape in October 2017, he forced SAFA to pay Grit Communications for personal services or image protection. According to the State, the service level agreement did not include it. The cost of these services exceeds R1.1 million.
Jennifer Ferguson, a musician and former ANC MP, accused Jordaan of sexual assault. The State further claims that Jordaan contracted with Badger Security, a security firm, to provide security for the 2018 SAFA elective conference using SAFA monies.
The State claims that these transactions were illegal and unapproved, and that Jordaan used them for his own personal gain. It further claims that Hluyo was fully aware of Jordaan’s alleged illegal behavior. There are two fraud charges against Neetling, the director of Grit Communications.
Each of the three defendants has disputed the accusations against them and plans to enter a not guilty plea. Phindi Mjonondwane, a spokesman for the National Prosecuting Authority, explained the charge sheet amendment by saying that the State, normally put provisional charges, and once investigations are concluded or once new information emerges, we can change our pricing sheet as soon as new information becomes available. Attempts to remove items from the list.
The court was also informed that Jordaan and Hluyo plan to review a ruling by Magistrate Sheron Soko-Rantao that denied their request to have the case removed from the roll. In a previous appeal for an unreasonable delay, Jordaan and Hluyo’s attorney, Norman Arendse, SC, argued that the investigating officer’s complaint and ongoing litigation in the Johannesburg-based Gauteng High Court might be the cause of the delays.
According to Arendse, the High Court received two motions contesting the search and seizure warrant that resulted in the raid on SAFA’s premises in March of this year and the arrest of the accused. Arendse stated that these issues will take time, and they expect and submit that any reasonable person will expect that it will result inevitably in a delay.
He acknowledged that the application was unique and that it had to do with the typical difficulties of postponements brought on by systemic problems. In opposition to the application, Malebati claimed that no unreasonable delay had occurred and that the court was unable to predict if there would be any more delays.
He noted that the statute did not refer to an excessive delay that might occur in the future, but rather to a delay that had already occurred. Malebati contended that the court must first identify a delay before concluding that it is unreasonable, and in this case, there have been no delays.
The State further argued that even if a court decided that the search-and-seizure warrant was illegal, the criminal trial could still go forward without the evidence since the criminal case was not subject to the High Court’s rules.
On December 10, 2024, Soko-Rantao rejected the application, concluding that the criminal procedures had not been delayed. According to her, the criminal matter before the regional court was unaffected by the High Court’s decisions and applications, and the plea for an unreasonable delay was premature.
Soko-Rantao expressed her amazement at receiving no action after learning about the review. The court was also informed that Neetling had argued his case against prosecution to Andrew Chauke, the Johannesburg Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, in the interim.
According to James Ndebele, Neetling’s attorney, Chauke stated he would decide by the first week of March. To address the review application, the State and defense agreed to a protracted postponement until August 15. Whether the State will oppose the review application is still up in the air. fix grammar errors only dont change the length of the article
About the Author
