Cops refuse to act on charges against president

[Necuno]

Cops refuse to act on charges against president

President Kgalema Motlanthe has been formally accused of theft — but police and prosecutors are refusing to act against him.

Top-level police intervention was sparked on Wednesday when the owner of a R6-million Johannesburg house laid charges of theft and damage to property against Motlanthe.

The president, who lived in the house between July and November last year, is accused by businessman Mark Burnett of removing expensive wall units and cabinets from his Saxonwold property and leaving behind damages estimated at about R500000.

Police on Thursday told Burnett they would not proceed with the case. This followed two days of unprecedented police reaction, including:

# A special request that Burnett not lay the charge at Rosebank police station where it would usually have been recorded;

# A visit to Burnett’s home by two police captains to collect his statement;

# A visit to Burnett’s home a few hours later by two provincial police commissioners; and

# A police suggestion that the paperwork be done under false names to avoid publicity.

The Sunday Times revealed last month how controversial ANC benefactor Sandi Majali sourced the luxury Griswold Road home for Motlanthe last May.

A consultant to Majali’s companies signed the sale agreement a few weeks later. Cheques for occupational rent came from Majali’ s companies.

When the consultant, Molotsi Sifora of ML Sifora Consultancy, couldn’t raise a loan after several months, the sale collapsed.

Motlanthe moved out on November 27. When the scandal broke, the president said he’d had nothing to do with buying the house.

Police spokesman Director Sally de Beer yesterday confirmed that police would not act in the matter. She said that Burnett’s statement had been submitted to the senior public prosecutor “who agreed with the police’s opinion that no criminal offence took place and that this is a civil matter”.

Presidential spokesman Thabo Masebe said: “The president did nothing wrong. We have nothing to say.”

Burnett and his lawyer now want an explanation from the National Prosecuting Authority. They may serve summons on ML Sifora Consultancy and the president, he said.

“The president lived in my house and when he left, certain items were missing. I have a witness who says he was responsible,” said Burnett.

In a statement to police, Burnett’s domestic worker, Bella Zondo, who lived on the property during Motlanthe’s tenancy, said the president made “certain changes to the property”. When she queried the removal and altering of property that “belonged to my employer”, she claims, she was told Motlanthe had bought the property and “could make any changes”.

Burnett said Sifora had told him the mess had nothing to do with him. “Those responsible are hiding behind his consultancy, ” Burnett said.

Sifora declined to comment. His lawyer, Siyabonga Mah-langu, could not be reached.

 

[Syndyre]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

 

[sand_man]

“The president lived in my house and when he left, certain items were missing. I have a witness who says he was responsible,” said Burnett.

In a statement to police, Burnett’s domestic worker, Bella Zondo, who lived on the property during Motlanthe’s tenancy, said the president made “certain changes to the property”. When she queried the removal and altering of property that “belonged to my employer”, she claims, she was told Motlanthe had bought the property and “could make any changes”.

So are we to believe the domestic worker or the president of the country?

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

This is a civil case: What was the condition of the leases contract? Was this in turn sub-lease or was it fraud (criminal)? What archival evidence (photos / invoices) does the landlord have to prove ownership of removed items and did they actually exist to start off with?

I'm not a ANCfanboy but fair is fair. I kinda guess its a slow day in the media.

 

[Sackboy]

So are we to believe the domestic worker or the president of the country?

Which one has more reason to lie?

 

[Surv0]

Seems like a pretty big allegation to make if you know its not true. Im Sure Mr Burnett would not want to tarnish his reputation unless what had happened was true. That or hes desperate and is taking a chance, for what ever reason. Yes all evidence should be brought forward, and im sure there would be an inventory of the house at time of signing they can refer to.

Maybe it happened, but the president didnt have anything to do with the removal of furniture, it could be the people under him using his authority to commit crime.

To me, the government and anybody concerned is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Sackboy]

Seems like a pretty big allegation to make if you know its not true. Im Sure Mr Burnett would not want to tarnish his reputation unless what had happened was true. That or hes desperate and is taking a chance, for what ever reason. Yes all evidence should be brought forward, and im sure there would be an inventory of the house at time of signing they can refer to.

Maybe it happened, but the president didnt have anything to do with the removal of furniture, it could be the people under him using his authority to commit crime.

To me, the government and anybody concerned is guilty until proven innocent.

Who signed the lease and who lived in it. Anyone else is not involved or shouldn't be.

 

[CyraxHB]

So are we to believe the domestic worker or the president of the country?

I'd take the word of a domestic worker over that of a politician any day!

 

[sand_man]

Seems like a pretty big allegation to make if you know its not true. Im Sure Mr Burnett would not want to tarnish his reputation unless what had happened was true.

Yeah and I'm sure the president would risk his for the sake of a few pieces of furniture?

 

[Sackboy]

Yeah and I'm sure the president would risk his for the sake of a few pieces of furniture?

A Deputy President risked his life for an evening of fun, so why not.

 

[kingmonty]

Really, the bickering here is irrelevant...

as a citizen of this country, I expect a full investigation to be done if I press criminal charges against someone. If you remove something from a house that doesn't belong to you, it's theft and therefore a crime, no matter who you are.

 

[Sackboy]

Really, the bickering here is irrelevant...

as a citizen of this country, I expect a full investigation to be done if I press criminal charges against someone. If you remove something from a house that doesn't belong to you, it's theft and therefore a crime, no matter who you are.

Zuma has been accused of trying to become President so that he can avoid charges, so are you saying that argument is invalid?

 

[kingmonty]

Zuma has been accused of trying to become President so that he can avoid charges, so are you saying that argument is invalid?

What?

Zuma was charged long before he was even in line to become president. Furthermore, even Zuma would require the constitution to be changed for him never to be charged (even as president), so where does that leave your assumption now?

 

[Sackboy]

What?

Zuma was charged long before he was even in line to become president. Furthermore, even Zuma would require the constitution to be changed for him never to be charged (even as president), so where does that leave your assumption now?

I see similar forces at work with Motlanthe . They will protect their chief (whomever it may be) from embarrassment. Again, this is what Zuma may be doing by trying to delay his case.

 

[kingmonty]

I see similar forces at work with Motlanthe . They will protect their chief (whomever it may be) from embarrassment. Again, this is what Zuma may be doing by trying to delay his case.

Zuma is trying to delay his case because he has very smart advocates and attorneys who know the law inside out and who know the longer it is delayed the stronger the chances it will be dismissed. It's a legal tactic and all good lawyers would dream of having a case that they can get constant delays in. This is a sack of gold for Zuma's lagal team. They are just exploiting it to their maximum gain.

Just as an aside: Zuma himself is pretty much excluded from this - he doesn't even go to the court hearings himself. It's all just a massive game of legal cat and mouse.