Regulation 10(6)

A person can be identified as a suspect through plea negotiations but not named in the plea deal and still appear in Regulation 10.6 proceedings, affecting how the legal team must deal with such a suspect.

“Let us say you are a suspect that you connived with General X to do A, B, and C. General X does not appear, for instance, in the plea deal. It is discussed there, there is questions made, there is recordings made, but General X appeared in the Regulation 10.6. Now, for me to deal with whether he is a suspect or not... I need to know what was discussed during the plea negotiations...”

ADV VANDENHEEVER explains they have made common cause on issues that their client can answer and that the client does not know certain persons listed in Regulation 10.6, but they cannot address other issues until shown what can be answered in black and white.

“the only thing that is, that he can say to you at this point, I do not know A, B, C, D, and E. The rest of the issues, we cannot deal with.”

ADV VANDENHEEVER states it would not be desirable to have a piecemeal hearing, yet also clarifies the client may have to confirm not knowing certain persons under oath.

“the only part of the Regulation 10.6 that we are ad idem with each other... the only thing that is, that he can say to you at this point, I do not know these people... The rest of the issues, again, I want to emphasize, we want to cooperate.”

ADV VANDENHEEVER submits that they can only form common cause with the client saying they do not know persons A, B, C, D, and E on the list in Regulation 10.6, the rest of the issues cannot be dealt with at the stage without further information.

“the only thing is that my client can answer... that we say that we form common cause on is who he does not know on the list of the 10.6. The rest of the issues, if I may please... The rest of the issues, I cannot say to you, I am prepared to answer this because I do not know if I can.”

Mr Carrim was unable to appear due to hospital admission on 7 June but had no valid excuse for not responding to Regulation 10.6 notices regarding his companies' auditors and financial statements.

“He is not here today and we received a doctor's note yesterday that refers to his admission to hospital on the 7th of June... We are still waiting for Mr Carrim to tell us, for example, who the auditors of his companies are... there is nothing in the doctor's note that suggests his health conditions are of such an order that he has been unable to do that for two months... we are still waiting for Mr Carrim to furnish audited or even unaudited financial statements for three of his companies, Ziggy, Tasmica and Tameez...”

MAJ-GEN SENONA confirmed in evidence he confined himself to SAPS Isipingo when responding to a question but did not answer whether other suitable storage facilities were available for seized drugs, as required by Regulation 10(6).

“you confined the answer only to the Isipingo SAP 13 ... that question you do not answer ... about other suitable facilities ... in Regulation 10(6)”