Publications
Partners
South Africa's prisons are overcrowded and unsafe for an elderly woman and the State's case against her is weak.
These are just some of the reasons disgraced former National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula has given as to why she shouldn’t be detained in jail as an awaiting trial prisoner.
On Thursday Mapisa-Nqakula appeared in the dock before the Pretoria Magistrates' Court, facing 12 counts of fraud and corruption along with one charge of money laundering.
Magistrate Anna Oosthuizen granted the 67-year-old bail of R50 000 after she handed herself over at the Lyttleton Police Station in Centurion, Pretoria, where she was processed in the presence of her legal representatives.
READ: Mapisa-Nqakula's R50k bail: State to add another accused in corruption case
The state did not oppose her bail application, and her case was postponed to 4 June 2024, as the State intends to add another accused in the corruption and money laundering case against the top ANC politician.
The charges against Mapisa-Nqakula relate to accusations that she accepted millions of rand in bribes from defence contractor turned State witness, Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, during her tenure as defence minister.
The charges levelled against Mapisa-Nqakula are Schedule Five offences, which means she needed to convince the magistrate that, on the balance of probabilities, it was in the interests of justice that she be granted bail. The state did not oppose her bail application.
READ: Baleka Mbete and Lungisa back Mapisa-Nqakula, while Holomisa says she wasted everyone's time
Mapisa-Nqakula resigned on Wednesday from her position as speaker of the National Assembly and a Member of Parliament for the ANC after the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on Tuesday, dismissed, with costs, her urgent application to halt her arrest.
Her lawyer, Advocate Graham Kerr-Phillips, read out in court on Thursday, her sworn affidavit outlining the reasons why Mapisa-Nqakula should be granted bail.
Below are some of the arguments made by the former speaker in her bail application:
Weak state case
In her affidavit, Mapisa-Nqakula remains adamant that she is innocent of any wrongdoing and continues to maintain that the ID has a weak case against her despite the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruling, in her failed urgent application, to block her arrest, that such claims are based on “pure speculation”.
She stated:
Ironically, the former speaker admitted that her legal team had no access to the case docket before she was charged by the NPA. She claimed that her knowledge of the evidence against her stemmed solely from media leaks, which, in her view, indicated a weak case on the part of the state.
Mapisa-Nqakula stated:
Advocate Bheki Manyathi, the state's lead prosecutor, countered the defence's claim regarding the weakness of the case against Mapisa-Nqakula.
READ: Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula quits Parliament: 'I cannot continue in this role'
He contended that such a conclusion couldn't be drawn since her legal team hadn't obtained access to the case docket. Manyathi also disputed the validity of media reports cited by the defense, saying that the prosecution solely operates on factual evidence.
He stated:
State of SA’s prisons and her chronic condition
Mapisa-Nqakula raised concerns about the conditions of the country’s prisons, citing issues of overcrowding and the potential for assault if she were to be detained until her trial commences.
She contended that such conditions posed a significant threat to her safety and security, particularly due to her advanced age as an elderly woman, leaving her vulnerable to potential gang-related activities.
She stated:
“Applying the concept of systemic failure, South African prisons and the juvenile facilities do not have the facilities available to make provision for my safety and security.”
Advocate Kerr-Phillips informed the court that Mapisa-Nqakula suffers from hypertension, commonly known as high blood pressure, emphasising that without proper treatment, her life would be at risk.
The state acknowledged her status as a senior citizen and her chronic illness.
Advocate Manyathi said:
Reputation and family life
As part of her personal circumstances, Mapisa-Nqakula contended that her detention could harm her reputation. She expressed concerns that her absence from her family and the preparation of her defence for trial would be adversely impacted if she were to be arrested as an awaiting-trial prisoner.
She stated:
“There is no prospect, on the facts that are known to me, that if I were released on bail that I would undermine or jeopardise objectives of the proper functioning of the criminal justice system, including the bail system, even if I wanted to, which is denied.
“It cannot be shown that I have a disposition to commit crime. My release on bail cannot, on the facts known to me, disturb the public order or undermine the public peace and security,” she added.
Not a flight risk/state pension
Mapisa-Nqakula assured the court that she posed no flight risk, stating that she had too much at stake, including her state pension, to consider evading trial.
She said:
“I embrace the legal system and will abide by any finding that a court will make against me. I tender my cooperation with the investigating officer, the South African Police Service and the NPA, and to voluntarily make myself available at all hearings of this matter.”
READ: Court rejects Mapisa-Nqakula’s urgent application to halt her imminent arrest
She further asserted that she voluntarily appeared in court, despite having filed two applications to halt her arrest. In addition, the former speaker's legal representative informed the magistrate that she had no criminal record nor any pending charges against her.
“I place the following facts on record. I have no previous convictions, I’m already quite mature and thus my past history shows that I do not have a propensity to commit crime and I’m not aware of any other criminal investigations against me,” she said.
State witnesses
Mapisa-Nqakula vowed to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in their investigations and assured the court that she would not interfere with witnesses.
“At this point in time, I’m not aware of exactly which witnesses the state will be relying on to prove its case besides the 204 witnesses [Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu]. While this is so, I the undertaken that I will not make contact with her at any time until the finalisation of this matter or any time thereafter. I have no interest in contacting her now or ever and will not do so,” she said.
Right to remain silent
Mapisa-Nqakula also stated that she reserved her right to remain silent until the case is decided.
She stated:
