VBS Bank heist: state accuses Msiza and Matsepe of delaying tactics

The state has labelled the latest court bid of two disgraced former ANC leaders, Danny Msiza and Kabelo Matsepe, as a delaying tactic and says the court should dismiss their applications.

Msiza and Matsepe, former leaders in the ANC in Limpopo and the ANCYL, respectively, were back in the Pretoria high court on Wednesday to continue their application for a temporary stay of prosecution and the separation of their cases from the other co-accused in the VBS Mutual Bank heist.

They are among 12 officials implicated in what has been dubbed the “Great Bank Heist”, which saw billions siphoned from the now-defunct bank.

The former chair of the bank, Tshifhiwa Matodzi, was sentenced in July to 15 years' imprisonment after pleading guilty to 33 counts, including corruption, theft, fraud, money laundering and racketeering activities, in contravention of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.

Former National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head advocate Shaun Abrahams, while solely representing Msiza, had previously asked the court to allow his client to not be charged alongside the others, as Msiza faced “real, substantial prejudice” from the current structure of the charges.

The other issue Abrahams noted was Msiza’s petitioning the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), after his application for “further particulars” (more information) from the NPA was rejected.

Matsepe faces 39 of the 179 charges brought against the accused, while Msiza faces eight.

Abrahams, now representing both men, said they had brought the application based on the state's “persistent refusal” to furnish his clients with the necessary documents “which are imperative and reasonably necessary to assist them in the preparation of their respective defences”.

Prosecutor Hein van der Merwe said that while Msiza and Matsepe's co-accused had requested this further information back in 2021, the duo had waited until last year to do so.

The prosecutor told the court it should dismiss the application of the two, and Van der Merwe maintained he had been ready to proceed with the trial but there had been delays coming from the accused. 

However, Abrahams maintained it was within their rights to be given the information, as it had a bearing on their charges. 

“The information, documents and evidence sought by [Matsepe and Msiza], moreover, have a direct bearing on the evidence that the state intends to present and is pertinent to the points in issue in relation to the charges,” he said.

Abrahams further argued that his clients “are suffering substantial irreparable trial-related prejudice” as a result of the state's “persistence”, which had forced the duo to approach the SCA for relief. 

“This delay, moreover, impacts the commencement and conclusion of the trial of applicants’ co-accused without unreasonable delay,” he said.

Asked about the timeline in the leave to appeal bid to the SCA, Abrahams told judge Peter Mabuse: “The timeline, with the greatest respect, is indeterminable; it's out of our hands.

“We don't know because heads of argument will have to be filed, a date will be set for hearing [and] we'll have to await the judgment. It's indeterminable,” he said.

Abrahams confirmed that they intended to take their appeal all the way to the Constitutional Court if it failed at the SCA and that this, too, would take an indeterminable time.

Additionally, the additional applications they wanted to bring are “intrinsically” linked to the outcome of their appeal.

“They can't even move any of those applications until they have finality and the highest court has spoken on the matter,” he said.

Abrahams accepted that the remaining accused would be “severely and substantially prejudiced” should their trial start date be delayed.

The state has accused Matsepe and Msiza of trying to delay their day in court. 

TimesLIVE