GQEBERHA – The PRASA railway theft matter has been postponed, with proceedings set to continue between 8 and 12 June, while Magistrate Thabisa Mpimpilashe will deliver a ruling on 9 June on whether key state witness Adrian Samuels may testify virtually from Dubai.
The state argued strongly in favour of virtual testimony, stating that Samuels is a compliant state witness, noting that he has used his own funds to testify in this delayed court case.
As previously reported by the Express, 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).
Meanwhile, legal representatives for both Swartz and Mohiudeen stressed that the case requires a fair and transparent process, questioning how effective cross-examination could be conducted from abroad.
Swartz’s legal representative, Advocate Mzwamadoda Mnyani, during arguments also pointed to Samuels’ repeated failure to appear in court, noting that this marks his fourth absence despite prior warnings.
He argued that Samuels’ non-compliance risks undermining the administration of justice and raised concerns about his availability, suggesting that he is not a permanent resident in the United Arab Emirates and frequently travels between South Africa and Dubai.
The state further submitted that no exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated to justify a “blanket approach” allowing virtual testimony, warning that it could prejudice the accused and weaken the integrity of cross-examination.
Mohiudeen’s legal representative, Yugeshnee Govender, raised concerns that allowing remote testimony could open the door to witness coaching or other forms of assistance during proceedings, particularly in light of advances in AI tools.
Both defence teams opposed the application for virtual testimony, arguing that Samuels is a key witness for the state and must be cross-examined in person.
Mnyani contended that the accused has a constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, but that fairness would be compromised if key evidence is presented remotely.
The defence further questioned the practicality of conducting meaningful cross-examination while the witness is in Dubai, stating that the process is still at an early stage and that critical lines of questioning have not yet been fully explored.
Mnyani further argued that the state had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying remote testimony.
It was further submitted by prosecutor Gerrit van der Merwe that Samuels had previously travelled to South Africa at his own expense and had participated in earlier proceedings, with the defence describing him as generally compliant and also a resident of the UAE.
However, Mnyani emphasised that repeated non-attendance at court undermines the process and that the witness should not be given the option to decide how he participates in proceedings.
A ruling will be delivered on 9 June, with the matter expected to continue on 10, 11 and 12 June, pending the outcome.
