News

JDA boss Themba Mathiba walks free as fraud case is struck off the court roll

sipho jack and Ayanda Mdluli|Published
The fraud case against Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA) CEO Themba Mathibe was struck off the roll

The fraud case against Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA) CEO Themba Mathibe was struck off the roll

Image: Facebook

The Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA) head and acting CEO of the Johannesburg Social Housing Company (JOSHCO), Themba Mathiba, walked free after the fraud matter he faced was struck off the court roll.

Mathiba appeared in the Alexandra Magistrate's Court on Tuesday, facing fraud- and corruption-related charges.

The 29-year-old member of the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) was arrested by the Special Task Force in January.

Police had linked him to alleged procurement irregularities related to his tenure at JOSHCO.

When Mathiba first appeared in court in January, the State requested additional time to complete its investigations.

A key objective of the investigation was to access his electronic devices to gather evidence in support of the allegations against him.

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) was granted five months to do so. However, the prosecutor informed the court on Tuesday that more time was needed to review the devices.

The court ruled that five months was more than sufficient time to gather evidence and decided to strike the case off the roll.

Mathiba was understood to have been arrested after he was allegedly found in possession of a substantial amount of cash.

His arrest followed a raid by law enforcement authorities at the city's social housing offices.

The operation was conducted as part of an investigation into allegations of irregularities involving certain contract awards.

In delivering his ruling, presiding officer Renier Boshoff delivered a sharp rebuke to the NPA, refusing its request for further time to prepare the case against Mathiba.

"The State has already been granted a five-month extension to finalise its docket.

"This was more than enough time to wrap up investigations, and the court will not tolerate further unreasonable delays," Boshoff stated.

During the proceedings, the State acknowledged its inability to link Mathiba to any substantial wrongdoing but insisted that it required more time to build its case.

Also weighing against the State's case was a paper trail, seen by the Daily News, which revealed a series of correspondence from Mathiba's attorneys to the South African Police Service (SAPS).

After allegedly making three attempts to engage law enforcement regarding the evidence supporting the charges against Mathiba, the attorneys received no response from police.

His legal team further raised concerns that no warrant had been issued for his arrest or for the search of his Sandton residence, where cash allegedly central to the allegations against him was discovered.

Represented by attorney Lesley Sedibe of Lesley Sedibe Attorneys Incorporated, together with senior counsel Lawrence Hodes, Mathiba's defence highlighted what it described as fundamental weaknesses in the State's case.

"They arrested my client without a warrant, searched his home without a warrant, and then took five months to prove a case that never existed.

"Today, the court saw it for what it was. My client's name and reputation must be restored," Sedibe said.

The attorney argued that more than five months after the arrest, investigators were still unable to account for their progress, had failed to provide evidence linking Mathiba to alleged illegal activity, and had neglected communication with his legal representatives.

The ramifications of Mathiba's arrest were fuelled by leaks and claims regarding the alleged amount of cash involved, with figures fluctuating from R2 million to smaller amounts.

One of Mathiba's close associates, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, said Tuesday's ruling vindicated the position taken by the defence.

"With the case now struck off the roll, the State's inability to produce any substantive evidence, combined with Boshoff's harsh critique, has left the sensational narrative previously spread across social media and within sections of the press fundamentally unsupported in a judicial context," he said.

Legal expert Nthabiseng Dubazana of Dubazana Attorneys shed light on what she described as a troubling pattern: the frequent striking of cases from the court roll.

While it might appear insignificant to members of the public, Dubazana said such occurrences happen with alarming regularity, sometimes two or three times a week, and rarely attract media attention.

"As people who are in court almost daily, we see matters being struck off the roll. But because they're smaller matters, they don't get reported," Dubazana said.

"The implications of these matters being struck off the roll, however, are significant, as they arise from deeper systemic issues within the investigative bodies that support the judiciary."

Dubazana noted that while the NPA oversees investigations and prosecutions, it cannot be solely blamed for inefficiencies.

"When matters are investigated, it is under the direction of the NPA, of course. However, they are not the ones who go out and conduct the investigations," she said.

"The NPA relies on the South African Police Service (SAPS) or other investigative units to gather evidence.

"If these entities fail to deliver information timeously, the NPA is left with little recourse other than to seek additional time from the court."

She said the situation presents complex legal challenges, particularly regarding the right to a speedy trial as provided for in Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Courts, she explained, must balance the need for thorough investigations against the rights of accused persons.

"Unfortunately, the court has to weigh that against the right of the accused to a speedy trial," Dubazana said.

She also clarified that a matter being struck off the roll does not mean it has come to an end.

"Matters can be re-enrolled once investigations have been completed.

"In such circumstances, the parties are typically subpoenaed to reappear before court, allowing the process to continue.

"The docket will be disclosed to the attorneys, and they can then proceed to defend their clients in that regard," Dubazana said.

DAILY NEWS