GQEBERHA – The State has argued that key witness Adrian Samuels is willing to testify in the long-running PRASA rail theft trial despite being based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, as proceedings were delayed over the admissibility of an uncommissioned statement and an application for virtual testimony.

During proceedings in the Gqeberha Regional Court on Thursday, 28 May, the court heard evidence relating to Samuels, a State witness currently working in Dubai, who was expected to testify this week.

The State’s application centred on allowing Samuels to testify virtually after he failed to travel to South Africa as planned.

Testifying before the court, New Law Courts manager Mfuneko Sodlulashe said he had been in contact with Samuels via email and telephone regarding his attendance.

The matter relates to allegations that in 2012, former PRASA regional manager Mthuthuzeli Swartz and Cape Town businessman Syed Nadhir Mohiudeen facilitated the sale of approximately 42 kilometres of disused railway track between Sterkstroom and Khowa (formerly Elliot).

The railway line was allegedly sold as scrap metal to a Durban-based company for around R1.5 million.

Adrian Samuels and his cousin, Cedric Samuels, allegedly purchased the disused Transnet railway line from Swartz and Mohiudeen.

Sodlulashe told the court that Samuels had recently informed him that he could not travel to Gqeberha because he is employed in Dubai, where he has been working since August 2025.

He said Samuels was attempting to obtain a commissioned statement through the South African Embassy in the UAE to explain his inability to attend court in person.

However, the statement referred to in court had not been commissioned, prompting objections from the defence.

Counsel for both accused argued that the State was seeking to rely on a document that had not been properly authenticated and questioned whether sufficient efforts had been made to secure the witness’s attendance.

Swartz’s legal representative, Advocate Mzwamadoda Mnyani, further argued that repeated delays involving Samuels were prejudicing the accused’s right to a speedy trial.

Mohiudeen’s legal representative, Yugeshnee Govender, also highlighted that this was the second occasion on which the witness had failed to appear in court, noting that warrants had previously been issued in relation to his non-attendance.

Investigating officer Warrant Officer Zonke Sonjana testified that he only became aware on Sunday, 24 May, that Samuels would not be travelling to South Africa.

According to Sonjana, Samuels had earlier indicated that he intended to attend but later informed him via WhatsApp that financial difficulties had prevented him from doing so.

Sonjana maintained that Samuels had remained cooperative throughout the investigation, stating that the witness had provided copies of his passport and consistently communicated while in Dubai.

Under questioning, Sonjana said Samuels claimed he had not returned to South Africa since leaving between 4 and 8 August 2025 and that he remained in Dubai under a yearly employment contract.

Prosecutor Gerrit van der Merwe argued that Samuels was not attempting to evade the court process, submitting that his difficulties were financial rather than an intentional effort to avoid testifying.

He told the court that Samuels was willing to testify virtually and that modern technology could assist in preventing further unnecessary delays.

Van der Merwe also pointed to the lengthy history of postponements in the matter, arguing that delays could not be attributed solely to the witness, as the State had often been ready to proceed while other issues caused adjournments over the years.

Mnyani disputed this, arguing that the State had failed to properly prepare for the witness’s testimony and that an uncommissioned statement could not be relied upon.

He said all necessary documentation should have been in place before the matter was enrolled.

Magistrate Thabisa Mpimpilashe rejected the admission of the statement, ruling that it could not be accepted in its current form because it had not been commissioned.

The matter was postponed until Friday, 29 May, for Swartz’s and Mohiudeen’s legal representatives to make submissions on the application for virtual testimony.

ALSO READ: Dubai-based witness delays PRASA rail theft case in Gqeberha court