The Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM) Deputy Mayor, Gary van Niekerk, briefly appeared in the Gqeberha Regional Court on Tuesday, 29 July, where he declined a plea agreement offered by the State.

Accepting the plea agreement would have required him to plead guilty to the charges against him, receive a criminal record and pay a fine of approximately R28,000. Van Niekerk refused the offer, maintaining his innocence.

Van Niekerk faces charges of cyber fraud and contravening the Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA).

PE Express previously reported that, according to the charge sheet, Van Niekerk allegedly instructed Boqwana Burns Attorneys (BBA) and McWilliams & Elliott Attorneys (MWE) to render legal services on two separate occasions in June and December 2022 while falsely representing himself as both a councillor and Speaker of Council.

Speaking to the media after the proceedings, Van Niekerk said he called the briefing not to litigate his case in the public domain, but to explain what he believes is a broader pattern of events within the NMBM.

“Today I am not here to put anyone on trial in the media. That is the responsibility of our courts,” he said. “I am here to explain why I believe the public deserves to understand a sequence of events that, in my opinion, demonstrates how a cabal can operate within government.”

According to Van Niekerk, a “cabal” does not necessarily operate through a single event, but through what he described as “a series of carefully timed decisions, strategic omissions and coordinated actions”.

He urged the public to consider what he believes is a pattern of events rather than isolated incidents.

Referring to the arrest of former city manager Dr Noxolo Nqwazi in September 2022, Van Niekerk questioned the timing of her decision to appoint Selwyn Thys as acting city manager on the same day.

Whether it was merely coincidence or something more is a conclusion that each person must draw for themselves. I have drawn my own conclusions.

Van Niekerk also revisited the council meeting of 7 December 2022, arguing that the exclusion of two Defenders of the People councillors, coupled with the absence of two ACDP councillors, resulted in council failing to achieve a quorum. As a result, he said, councillors were unable to consider referring Nqwazi to the Municipal Disciplinary Board.

“Instead, the meeting collapsed, and Council was unable to consider the referral of Dr Nqwazi to the Municipal Disciplinary Board,” he said.

He further claimed the municipality did not actively oppose Nqwazi’s subsequent High Court application to return to work.

“The Municipality did not actively oppose the application, and only an observer attended the proceedings,” Van Niekerk said, adding that the sequence of events raised what he believed were legitimate questions deserving of answers.

Regarding the criminal complaint lodged against him, Van Niekerk questioned why it was only laid months after the events in question and how information contained in the complaint was obtained. While stressing that he was not making allegations against any individual, he said: “Those are not accusations. They are questions which, in my opinion, deserve answers.”

Addressing the charges against him, Van Niekerk maintained that he had acted lawfully and in good faith while serving as Speaker. He said the case originally related to approximately R550,000 in legal expenses, but claimed the State was now seeking a conviction involving approximately R28,000. He further stated that no money linked to the legal invoices had been paid into his personal bank account or benefited him personally.

From the very beginning, I have maintained that I acted in good faith, in accordance with my responsibilities as Speaker, and in the best interests of the Municipality.

Van Niekerk said he welcomed the opportunity to present his defence in court, insisting that the legal process, rather than public opinion, should determine the outcome.

“The courtroom, not the media, is where the evidence must be tested,” he said. “If I am wrong, the Court will say so. If I am right, the truth will emerge.”

He added that he remained confident in the justice system and believed the matter would be thoroughly ventilated during the trial, with justice ultimately prevailing.

Concluding his address, Van Niekerk called on the public to examine the full sequence of events surrounding the matter.

“Look beyond isolated events. Consider the full chronology. Ask the difficult questions. Demand honest answers,” he said, adding that this was “how accountability is achieved”, “how public confidence is restored”, and “how the rule of law ultimately prevails”.

Speaking about the plea agreement, Van Niekerk said the State wanted him to plead guilty to charges relating to approximately R28,000, but he maintained that he was not guilty of those allegations.

What I just explained is that the amount the State wants me to plead guilty to, I want you to understand that I am not guilty of that either. That’s why I chose to go to trial. Now I have to face the full R550,000.”

Asked how the matter would affect his campaign ahead of the 4 November local government elections, Van Niekerk said his decision to reject the plea agreement was influenced by his party leadership and supporters.

“Our members called me aside walking into the court today and requested that I not accept the plea. How can I disappoint them and plead to something I did not do?” he said.

The matter was postponed to 8, 9 and 10 December for trial. Van Niekerk remains out on bail.

ALSO READ: NMB deputy mayor Gary van Niekerk case postponed after magistrate falls ill