
Phoenix 🐦🔥
2.7K posts

Phoenix 🐦🔥
@ThatUniqueTee
Oh! I come first to ME. Non-negotiable.












That evidence has been extracted from devices seized by the SAPS in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, like Cat Matlala's devices. Devices have also been seized from several other suspects who have not been arrested. I assume this evidence forms part of a police dockets. The Commission, presumably, uses the Commissions Act to compel the SAPS to hand over the evidence, which they then present at the commission. (I forget which witness it was, but the evidence leader told the commission they had obtained certain evidence from SAPS by using their powers of compulsion.) I foresee challenges for prosecutors if / when these cases get to trial. Suspects and accused (such as Matlala) are being confronted with evidence outside of the criminal justice process where they are being compelled to answer to it under threat of criminal consequences (contempt). The rights afforded to an accused as per the Constitution and CPA don't apply. That may satisfy the public's demand for answers, but it also opens up a huge opportunity for defence counsel to attack the prosecution, rightfully or wrongly. I have wondered whether DPPs and prosecutors are being consulted about the possible implications of leading evidence from dockets that are still under investigation. In the normal course, the State guards that docket until it is ready for trial and discloses it to the accused. This process has turned criminal procedure on its head.





Ladies when did you realize the man you were in a relationship with, actually hated you? I’ll go first.














O jewa ke eng ?










