×

We've got news for you.

Register on SowetanLIVE at no cost to receive newsletters, read exclusive articles & more.
Register now

Lamoer corruption trial - forensic investigator's experience and credentials questioned

April 01, 2014. CAPE TOWN. Western Cape police commissioner Lieutenant-General Arno Lamoer at the Khayelitsha commission. Pic: Trevor Samson. © Business Day
April 01, 2014. CAPE TOWN. Western Cape police commissioner Lieutenant-General Arno Lamoer at the Khayelitsha commission. Pic: Trevor Samson. © Business Day

The high profile corruption trial of former Western Cape Police Commissioner Arno Lamoer was infused with some drama on Wednesday.

The credentials and experience of forensic investigator and state witness Wynand Wessels came under attack from defence lawyer Saleem Halday.

State prosecutor‚ Billy Downer‚ asserted that Wessels had contributed to over 35 investigations with four of those cases ending in trial and seven with a plea bargain.

But this was quickly objected to by the defence which argued that experience was not relevant to “elaborating on the evidence in chief.”

Downer conceded that Wessels had often been “taken to task” about his experience as a forensic investigator.

On Tuesday defence lawyer Johnny Nortje surprised the court when he put it to Wessels that two of Lamoer’s co accused‚ Sharon Govender and her husband Collin‚ were relatives of another accused in the matter‚ businessman Salim Dawjee.

The four‚ along with former police brigadier Darius van der Ross‚ are on trial at the High Court in Cape Town where they face 109 charges of corruption and money laundering.

Nortje told the court that it was not illegal for family members to enter into financial agreements without disclosing the agreement. He was referring to payments for cars‚ car hire‚ flights and pool maintenance which Dawjee had paid for on behalf of the Govenders.

According to Nortje‚ the payments were not gifts but were part of agreements between the parties which saw Dawjee being reimbursed. He added that transactions where the Govenders’ children were beneficiaries should not be considered‚ because both of their children were adults and “could enter into any transaction they wished“.

But Wessels said that he included the transaction in his report‚ because “according to (corruption legislation) family members can receive gratification on your behalf“.

“It is not for me to decide which transactions are corrupt. It is for me to put before the court to decide‚” said Wessels.

The trial continues.

 

 

 

 

Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Speech Bubbles

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.