IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE No:
(SCA CASE No.: 419/09) In the matter between:
NAIDOO, RAJAN First Applicant
NAIDOO, DOLLY Second Applicant
TWOLINE TRADING 87 (PTY) LIMITED Third Applicant YAMANI PROPERTIES 1015 (PTY) LIMITED Fourth Applicant
and
THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS First Respondent SITHOLE, ZAKHILE N.O. Second Respondent
In re:
NAIDOO, RAJAN Appellant
and
NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS First Respondent SITHOLE, ZAKHILE N.O. Second Respondent
NAIDOO, DOLLY Third Respondent
TWOLINE TRADING 87 (PTY) LIMITED Fourth Respondent YAMANI PROPERTIES 1015 (PTY) LIMITED Fifth Respondent
CONFIRMATORY AFFIDAVIT
Page 2
I, the undersigned,
do hereby make oath and say that:
DOLLY NAIDOO
1. I am a businesswoman. I reside at 53 Basroyd Drive, Bassonia.
2. Save for where the context otherwise indicates, the facts contained herein are within my own personal knowledge. The facts contained herein are true and correct.
3. I have read the affidavit of Rajan Naidoo in this matter and confirm the contents thereof insofar as they relate to me.
4. I confirm further that I am the beneficial owner of Twoline and Yamani. I confirm further that I have, insofar as I hold the assets of Twoline and Yamani, agreed to lend to the first applicant such funds as he may require in order to afford him the most meaningful legal representation that I am able to afford.
5. I confirm further that the amounts held by the second respondent, in terms of asset, exceed by a substantial amount, as has been set out in first applicant’s founding affidavit, the amounts that I have alleged to have
Page 3
received from the first applicant and which it is contended amounts to an affected gift.
6. In any event, I once again, as I have in the previous restraint application, deny that that I have received any affected gift from the first applicant. I am able to show (although I have been advised not to do so in this application), as I have done in the restraint application that:
6.1 I have started my business being a successful service station which achieved the status of being one of the top ten service stations in the country on my own and without any financial assistance from the first applicant; and
6.2 I have been accredited with many awards from relevant organisations, including Business Partners, for my meritorious achievements in the business of the service station.
7. Since the attachment by the first and second respondents, I was unable to conduct the business of Twoline appropriately because of various interruptions that were caused by the first and second respondents, and with the result I was forced to sell the business of Twoline which, had it not been for the restraint order, would not have been sold by me.
Page 4
8. I confirm that I apply to this Honourable Court to permit me to utilise so much of my assets as I am able to, to assist the first applicant in his legal defence.
9. I say further that it is in my interest that he be able to mount a proper legal defence to the charges against him as it is the only way I can recover the money placed under restraint. The money has been placed under restraint on the basis that it constitutes an “affected gift” as contemplated in the provisions of POCA. I deny that the money is a gift from the first applicant.
However, this issue will be fully canvassed in the impending criminal trial.
10. I am not an accused in the impending criminal trial.
11. The only way I can protect my rights to my money (property) is by assisting the first applicant by granting him a loan to mount a proper legal defence in the impending criminal proceedings. My right to the money is protected by section 25 of the Constitution and I am only able to exercise that right by assisting the first applicant with his defence at the impending criminal proceedings.
12. It is for this reason that I make common cause with the first applicant.
13. This application is also brought in my own name as it is the only way I can protect my interests and rights. Until the judgement of the Supreme Court of
Page 5
Appeal was received I had no reason to believe that I had to bring an application in my own right as I believe that a proper interpretation of section 26(6) of POCA allowed me to secure the release of the restrained funds for purposes of assisting the first applicant with his legal defence in the impending criminal trial by advancing a loan to him.
14. I need to point out that Poswa J agreed with my reading of section 26(6) of the POCA.
WHEREFORE I pray for an order in terms of the notice of motion.
DEPONENT
I hereby certify that the deponent has acknowledged that he/she knows and understands the contents of this affidavit, which was signed and sworn to before me at Johannesburg on the day of DECEMBER 2010, the regulations contained in Government Notice No R1268 of 21 July 1972, as amended, and Government Notice No R1648 of 19 August 1977, as amended, having been complied with.
COMMISSIONER OF OATHS
Full Names:
Business Address:
Office:
