Author: admin

01 Mar 2013
Ingrid Oellermann

---

THREE witnesses including a former senior education official in KZN are going to be subpoenaed to give evidence in the trial of fraud accused Jabulani Mabaso, following defence complaints about the way the investigation was conducted.

Defence advocate Willie Vermeulen SC yesterday described as “astounding” this week’s eleventh-hour concession by the prosecution that one of the key allegations against Mabaso and Indiza Infrastructure Solutions had been “false all along”.
He detailed the severe consequences suffered by Mabaso as a result of the prosecution, which dates back to 2008.

Acting Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Kobus Booyens said he agreed with Vermeulen that it was in the interests of justice for the court to hear the evidence of three witnesses in this regard — former Department of Education (DOE) superintendent-general Themba Ndlovu, the investigating officer, Alan Nixon, and a state witness, Gillian Broughton.
He ordered that the trio be subpoenaed to give evidence when the case resumes again on July 8, saying it would be unfair to expect them to testify at short notice.

The prosecution conceded on Wednesday, in reply to an application for Mabaso’s discharge at the close of the state’s case, that it had not been able to prove the allegations in the indictment that Mabaso and Indiza were not entitled to profit from their relationship with the KZN education department.

State advocate Wendy Greef agreed therefore that Mabaso and Indiza were entitled to be discharged on 12 of the 18 counts of fraud, forgery and uttering in the indictment, while maintaining that there is a case for them to meet with regard to the remaining six counts.

Greef told the court that the state had closed its case without calling any witnesses from the DOE after consulting with former senior official Themba David Ndlovu.

She said when the prosecution consulted with Ndlovu, he had agreed with another state witness, Paul de Villiers, that Indiza had been entitled to mark up stationery it had supplied to schools on the DOE’s behalf. The state decided not to call him and made him available to the defence.

Greef said the state had felt it would have been unethical to then call other DOE witnesses to contradict Ndlovu, because that could have misled the court.

“The consultation [with Ndlovu] only took place the same morning that the state’s case was closed because it had been extremely difficult to get hold of Mr Ndlovu earlier,” she said.

But Vermeulen said yesterday it was plain that no statement had ever been taken from Ndlovu and he questioned if this was part of a “recurring pattern of selective investigative efforts on the part of the state” in the matter.

Vermeulen said the consequences of the prosecution were severe for Mabaso and Indiza. The case had been pending since 2008 and received widespread coverage “of the most negative nature imaginable to the accused”, Indiza had been wound up as a direct result of the case and Mabaso’s assets had been under restraint ever since his arrest. In addition, enormous amounts in legal costs and “many days of the court’s time have been wasted”, he said.

Dated: February 28 2013
By DAILY NEWS REPORTER

The State has conceded that school stationery fraud accused Jabulani Mabaso was entitled to a mark-up on the goods he supplied to the Department of Education and that he should be discharged on 12 of the counts he is facing.

Mabaso now faces a remaining 10 charges, which include fraud, forgery and uttering at his trial at the Pietermaritzburg High Court.

The charges against Mabaso relate to a tender awarded to his company, Indiza Infrastructure Solutions, by the KZN Department of Education for the supply of stationery to schools in 2005.

Indiza acted as the procurement agent on behalf of the department, procuring stationery from suppliers and then facilitating the supply and distribution of it to schools.

The department entered into a agreement with Indiza for a period of three months between June and September 2005 to continue the procurement and distribution of stationery to schools.

A second agreement was entered into in November 2005 for a period of two years.

Mabaso continued supplying stationery to the department and invoices were issued for this.

The State alleges that African Spirit Trading was a company created by Mabaso, which served as a supplier of stationery to Indiza at inflated prices, which in turn supplied the department.

During the period July 2005 to January 2007, Indiza invoiced the department an amount of R479 290 587. He is alleged to have defrauded the department of R197 466 837 by fabricating and inflating invoices.

In his plea, Mabaso said that his understanding of the agreement between him and the department was that Indiza was entitled to profit from the provision of stationery to schools.

Disclose

The department did not require Indiza to disclose the prices at which it purchased the stationery when it submitted its own invoices for payment. Mabaso said he bore no knowledge of incorrect invoices being submitted and that as far as he was concerned, all invoices were correct and calculated in accordance with his understanding of the service-evel agreement.

Following the closure of the State’s case, Mabaso’s legal team made an application for a discharge, claiming that the State had not disproved that he could profit from his agreement with the department.

The State conceded yesterday this was in fact the case, and that Mabaso was entitled to make a mark-up on goods, and so State advocate Wendy Greef conceded that Mabaso was hence entitled to a discharge on those counts.

However, in terms of the fraud charges against Mabaso, Greef said that these counts were widely framed and alleged prejudice or potential prejudice to the department and stationery suppliers Indiza used. These charges relate to an invoice that was allegedly “created” on the instructions of Mabaso and submitted to the department.

State witnesses and former Indiza employees Jillian Broughton and Paul de Villiers both fingered Mabaso as the “instigator” behind the fictitious invoice created in Palm Stationers’ name.

“

The evidence in this matter has been clear that Mabaso was in charge of operations at Indiza and made all business decisions. Nothing left Indiza without his knowledge and signature, therefore he is too closely intertwined in the activities which gave rise to the charges. It is therefore submitted that discharging Mabaso… is not in the interests of justice,” Greef said.

Argument continues on Thursday.

Original article here

February 28 2013 at 10:30am
By Sharika Regchand

---

Fraud accused Jabulani Mabaso at the Pietermaritzburg High Court. Picture: Shan Pillay
Durban – The State has made an about-turn by conceding that businessman Jabulani Mabaso was allowed to make a profit on the stationery he supplied to the Department of Education.

Advocate Wendy Greef told Acting Judge Kobus Booyens in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Wednesday that Mabaso could be discharged on 12 charges relating to his inflating the prices of stationery.

He had to answer to the remaining six charges of submitting fraudulent supplier invoices to the department, however.

Mabaso’s legal team filed an application on Monday for his discharge on all the charges.

Initially, it was alleged that Mabaso and his company, Indiza Infrastructure Solutions, defrauded the department of R200 million between 2005 and 2007, when he supplied stationery to schools.

Greef said that, in consulting a former department employee, at the end of the State’s case, it was established that Mabaso was allowed to put a mark-up on goods he supplied.

Greef noted that two witnesses had testified that Mabaso had instructed them to forge invoices in the name of Palm Stationers, a company that had supplied goods.

Asked by the judge why she believed Mabaso had forged invoices, Greef said it was to mislead the department that the items listed had been ordered.

When Mabaso submitted the fake invoices – which he denied doing – he must have known this would prejudice somebody.

“Had the items supplied by Indiza to the department been of an inferior standard, this could have impacted on the good name of Palm Stationers,” Greef said.

Throughout the trial Mabaso has said he was not required to submit supplier invoices to the department, just his own tax invoices.

Greef said, even if the department had not requested proof of order placement, this was a requirement Mabaso had to fulfil before being paid. The two witnesses who forged the invoices had no reason to lie.

Willie Vermeulen SC, for the defence, has said Mabaso was allowed to inflate the stationery prices to make a profit.

Argument continues on Thursday.

Original Article Here

 

1. The State has charged the Accused with 4 Counts of fraud, 7 counts of forgery, and 7 counts of uttering.  Accused 1, Jabulani Mabaso, was at all times during the events which gave rise to the charges the managing director of Accused 2, Indiza Infrastructure Solutions, which will hereafter be referred to simply as ‘Indiza’.
2. In terms of a tender awarded in May 2005, Indiza-Motswedi, a consortium between Indiza and another company named Motswedi Outsourcing,  was to supply an integrated management system  for the delivery of stationery to Section 20 schools in the province as per specifications in the tender. This was in terms of a programme known as the Learner Teacher Support Materials (LTSM) an initiative of the Department of Education (“DoE”). This ultimately gave rise to the charges framed in the indictment.
3. In terms of  a Service Level Agreement (SLA) subsequently entered into between Indiza only and the DoE the  contract consisted of project management and the supply of stationery. Full details of the tender, the subsequent Service Level Agreement (“SLA”) and the scope of the work to be done are contained in detail in the indictment as well as the statement made by the accused in terms of Section 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, and will not be repeated here in the interest of brevity.
4. Insofar as the Heads of Argument for the Applicant stand, the State is ad idem with the submissions made in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3.1 and 3.2 of the said Heads.
5. The fraud counts in Count 1 and Count 18 are based on inflated prices to which, or so the indictment alleges, the Accused were not entitled. The  Counts 12 and 15 pertain to forged Palm Stationery Invoices attached to Indiza Infrastructure Solutions Invoice numbers 2007/004 and 2007/009.

(more…)

 

1. Accused no. 1 is a businessman and director of companies.  At all times material to the indictment herein, he was the sole shareholder and director of the second accused, a private company incorporated as such, named Indiza Infrastructure Solutions (Pty) Ltd (“Indiza”).
2. The two accused are charged jointly with diverse charges of fraud, forgery and uttering, all of which have their origin in a so-called “Service Level Agreement” (“the SLA”) entered into between the KwaZulu Natal Provincial Department of Education (“the DoE”) and Indiza, in terms of which Indiza was appointed to provide stationery to all schools established in terms of Section 20 of the South African Schools Act, 1996 (Act 84 of 1996) in KwaZulu Natal.[1]
3. The SLA assumes a prominent place in the factual matrix of this matter, in that:

3.1.            Indiza’s rights, duties and obligations vis a viz the DoE were regulated largely by its provisions;

3.2.            the fraud charges in the indictment have been formulated on the basis that the alleged breaches of the terms of the SLA by the accused constitute misrepresentations to the DoE;[2]

3.3.            The forgery and uttering charges are likewise predicated upon the State’s peculiar interpretation of the terms of the SLA.  As will be demonstrated in more detail hereunder, the evidence in support of counts 13, 14, 16 and 17[3] is fundamentally flawed, precisely because it is anchored to the erroneous notion that Indiza’s contractual duties in terms of the SLA precluded it from marking-up the goods it sold and delivered to the schools.

To download the full document: (more…)

February 15 2013 at 03:14pm
by Sharika Regchand

---

BUSINESSMAN Jabulani Mabaso could be a free man if his application for a discharge succeeds in the Pietermaritzburg High Court next week.

Mabaso is on trial for allegedly defrauding the provincial education department of about R200 million between 2005 and 2007 by producing fake invoices, not passing on discounts, and radically increasing the price of stationery he was supplying to schools.

He was supposed to be charging the department only a management fee.

His advocate, Willie Vermeulen SC, told Acting Judge Kobus Booyens yesterday that he intended to bring the application next Thursday. If granted, it would mean Mabaso would be found not guilty.

If not, Mabaso could then either testify in his own defence or not.

Final arguments would then be heard, and the judge would make a final decision on whether or not he was guilty.

Original article here.

Dated: February 15 2013
By DAILY NEWS REPORTER

The State closed its case against school stationery fraud accused Jabulani Mabaso on Thursday, after which his legal counsel indicated they would apply for a discharge.

Mabaso’s advocate, Willie Vermeulen SC, told Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Kobus Booyens that the State had not proven its case against Mabaso.

He therefore does not have a case to answer to, and would be making an application for a discharge.

On Wednesday, Judge Booyens noted that the State may be wasting time in calling certain “key” witnesses, who were not even cross-examined by Vermeulen because their evidence did nothing to further the State’s case against Mabaso. Both the State and defence would submit heads of argument and the application for discharge would be argued on Thursday next week.

Mabaso, the managing director of Indiza Infrastructure Solutions, is accused of defrauding the KZN Department of Education of R200 million in 2005.

It is alleged he made his staff fabricate and inflate invoices for stationery.

Mabaso has pleaded not guilty to four charges of fraud, seven of forgery and seven of uttering.

Indiza acted as an agent for the department. The company is being liquidated.

Original article here

Accused nos. 1 and 2 hereby make the following formal admissions in terms of section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act 51 of 1977) (“the CPA’):

 

1. Accused 1 is an adult businessman and Managing Director of the following companies:

1.1.       Indiza Infrastructure Solutions

1.2.       Indiza Infrastructure

1.3.       Indiza Capital

1.4.       Indiza Properties

1.5.       Indiza Communications

1.6.       Indiza Investment Holdings

1.7.       Indiza Logistics and Management Services

1.8.       African Spirit Trading 268

1.9.       Twilight Logistics

1. Accused no. 2 is Indiza Infrastructure Solutions (Pty) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Indiza”) a company duly registered in terms of section 64(1) of the Companies Act, 1973 (Act 61 of 1973), and at present in liquidation.
2. Accused no. 1 was at all material times the sole director of accused no. 2 and he acted in the exercise of his powers and the performance of his duties as such and furthered the interests of accused no. 2.
3. During 2005 the KwaZulu Natal Department of Education (“DoE”) embarked on a programme for the procurement of stationery and accessories to all the schools established in terms of section 20 of the South African Schools Act, 1996 (Act 84 of 1996) (“the section 20 schools”) in the Province of KwaZulu Natal.  The said programme was referred to by the DoE as the Learner Teacher Support Material project (“LTSM”).

(more…)