Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Kenneth Diedricks
262 posts
Kenneth Diedricks
@k_diedricks
Attorney | Entrepreneur
Johannesburg, South Africa Katılım Mart 2025
74 Takip Edilen46 Takipçiler
@ProfSergioMarqu @D_Molatoli I do not know Andrew but definitely know Zola Majavu. He is indeed an attorney with good criminal law experience.
English
@k_diedricks @D_Molatoli There are indeed very good lawyers out there such as Zola Majavu and Andrew Maoba. Guys that doesn't catch the limelight because they look after the interests and pockets of the poor. They help where those high paid Adv's and lawyers refuse to help because it doesn't pay well
English
I really hope General Masemola has considered being represented by Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane SC when he appears in court on the 21st April. I can't think of anyone best to represent him. He's the best in town at the moment and has done exceptionally well in representing General Mkhwanazi against Calvin Mathibeli, won twice in court.
English
I actually worked with Muzi for many years and think he is a brilliant Advocate when it comes to certain areas of the law. Such as Commercial law matters or administrative law matters. He and Chaskelson were in the same group at the time I used him. This is not about white or black but about who is good in a certain field of law. If you had experience with good black advocates in criminal matters, please let me know who they are. I prefer that black advocates or attorneys be appointed if they have the experience and skill. It ensures transformation in the Industry. Blanket statements about black and white does not contribute meaningfully to si ch a debate.
English
I do not know if Muzi Sikhakhane or Mpofu has any Criminal Law Experience. If Masemola do not go for Laurence Hodes SC or Mike Hellens SC, then he must consider someone like Piet Du Plessis who is a Senior attorney that has the same amount of experience as the Senior Counsels around.
Masemola’s case should be easy to defend as there is very few cases in South Africa where the state has succeeded in charges of contravening Section 86 of the PFMA.
English
@NPA_Prosecutes I have listened to the evidence at Madlanga Commission and Senzo Mchunu’s involvement in the disbandment of the PKTT. Whilst there is no evidence that he received any personal gratification, there is enough evidence that he used his position to unlawfully disband the PKTT with the sole purpose to block the investigations that were being conducted by GCI Ops who was being assisted by the PKTT members. This decision was intended to disrupt the investigations and allow those being investigated to avoid prosecution. Mchunu therefore used his position so that those investigated could receive the gratification of their investigations being scuppered. For a charge of corruption, the person in a position of authority does not need to receive gratification himself but he uses his position to benefit a third party. The circumstantial evidence is enough for a charge of corruption against Mchunu.
Whilst we will wait for his second round of testimony at the Commission, there is already enough to charge him. We will be waiting for the recommendations.
English
This Commission is an NGO without any binding Jurisdiction. Surely you cannot make such a statement without disclosing all the evidence for us to consider whether this NGO applied its minds correctly. The SCA refused them leave to appeal. We cannot allow the independence of our judiciary to be undermined by NGO’s with no binding authority.
English
Pieter, I think we must be careful in not brushing all their actions with the same brush. Whilst the arrest of the 12 officers cannot be faulted and should not be attacked, the arrest of Masemola definitely smacks of sinister intent. The same goes for the decision to charge Khumalo for a HR issue. Also, the media always makes a noise about freedom of the press so you should likewise respect people’s freedom of speech.
English
Assault on IDAC reminiscent of state capture attacks on Scorpions, SARS news24.com/opinions/colum…
English
Kenneth Diedricks retweetledi
From interdict to arrest - a case study in judicial overreach.
Let me begin by noting that my experience with the South African courts has, overall, been positive. Over the years, I have been involved in several matters, both as applicant and as respondent, and the outcomes have generally been favourable. This, I believe, is not merely coincidental. Where I have initiated proceedings, I have done so with careful consideration of the merits, and where I have defended matters, I have ensured that I was supported by capable legal representation, the aforementioned, combined with enlightened Judges, secured my fortunes.
I have also, despite ultimately prevailing, been subjected to what I regard as malicious and vexatious litigation, by parties who appear to believe that financial strength entitles them to exert pressure on those in a comparatively weaker position.
A clear example in my own experience is @bp_SouthAfrica’s proxy, Petro-Props, which instituted proceedings against me on three separate occasions, succeeding only once thanks to that pusillanimous Judge Claassens. That interim judgement, however, later proved consequential in ways that extended beyond the immediate dispute.
Experiences such as these have made me particularly alert to the risks posed by flawed judicial decisions and underscore the importance of subjecting such rulings to scrutiny, whether through review or rescission, where appropriate.
Courts are not infallible, and though a strong legal system exists precisely because decisions can be revisited, corrected, or overturned, there are times when judicial errors result in such serious consequences that they damage the credibility of the institution itself.
The danger is not just in being wrong, but in being wrong in a way that causes immediate and disproportionate harm before corrective measures can intervene. In the case involving Tumi Sole vs Bafana Surprise Mathebula, granting an urgent interdict for defamation - despite the apparent removal of the offending material - raises significant questions about judicial scrutiny and procedural rigour.
Urgency, by its nature, requires clear and ongoing harm; invoking it when the alleged harm had arguably already ceased suggests a troubling lowering of that standard. Even more concerning is what happened afterwards: before the respondent had been given the full opportunity, as required by the Uniform Rules of Court, to challenge or respond to the order, the applicant escalated the matter into an urgent contempt application and a warrant of arrest.
Such procedural haste risks turning the courts from arbiters of justice into tools of coercion. When legal processes are used in this way, it not only undermines fairness between parties but also damages public confidence, reinforcing the perception that the system can be exploited to devastating effect.
English
The problem with officials in Governement, whether it be Senior Prosecutors, CEO’s of Government Owned Entities or DG’s, they all play politics and manipulate the facts to satisfy their Political Masters at the time and when time comes for accountability they want to plead innocense. If something happened under your watch, you must explain what you did to prevent it.
English
‘I am being scapegoated,’ Nomgcobo Jiba tells inquiry about missing Cradock Four docket #Echobox=1775106771" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-0…
English
Now that I have read the review case of Booysen, the FUL case in the SCA and the De Kock memorandum (which pointed to exactly the same problems faced by the state as Groven J pointed out), I am more convinced that the state was clutching at straws to try and establish racketeering charges against Booysen and the rest of the accused. I am not saying they were innocent of the allegations. But the state had no evidence supporting any case of racketeering or murder. Danikas never signed his statement, did not implicate Booysen at all and ran to Greece. Some witnesses who made affidavits died and the state tried to rely on the hearsay evidence rule (under circumstances where the evidence of witnesses were also hearsay or very thin). The ballistics evidence were non existence or the chain disrupted and forensic evidence of the crime scenes were contaminated. As for the conduct of the NPA, it was nothing short of incompetence or some other motive for its decision making. Jiba refused to file a Rule 53 record when Booysen brought his own review.
As for the Mdluli decision, whilst the SCA found Chauke was rational in his decision to withdraw the murder charge whilst the Inquest gets finalised, there exist no explanation why he did not re-instate it after the inquest or why he did not re-instate the other 17 charges which he also withdrew. This was highlighted by the SCA.
So before we try and sell our own views to the public, we must not just refer to high court cases and reports but actually refer to the substance of those cases and reports and indicate why we disagree with them.
I say again, I am not saying Booysen and the rest are Innocent, but Jiba, Mrewbi and Chauke were oncompwtwnt at the very least. On top of that, Chauke’s current attorney was implicated in corruption at Transnet, the case was withdrawn despite damning evidence and now he represents Chauke. Suspicion of payback cannot be ignored.
English
I've heard Madam Chair mention that the President appointed the evidence leaders.
My understanding is that the President appoints the Chairperson & panel. The Chair and panel choose the evidence leaders.
If anybody on the TL has the answer please assist 👇👇
𝑺𝒅𝒖@shufflesdu
@IamTshoki I think it's the president who chooses them. @pinkykhoabane ?
English
Please read the review judgement by Booysens and you will understand how the NPA made decisions based on non-existent evidence.
Also, whilst the SCA found Chauke’s decision to withdraw the murder case was a rational decision based on the fact that he first wanted the inquest to be finalised (which he called for by the way)the problem was he failed to re-instate some of the murder charges and the other related 17 charges which he also withdrew. When he received the outcome of the inquest, why did he not re-instate the charges.
Chauke kicked the case against Mdluli to touch and then sat back and did nothing when he had to act. This is classic behaviour by seniors who make decisions for nefarious reasons.
English
You are the one who can't see the forest for the trees. You must be watching the wrong Nkabinde Enquiry.
It's not just Batohi's meltdown, there's no evidence of Chauke's wrongdoing period. Chauke doesn't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is on Batohi. Please substantiate your allegations against advocate Chauke rather than just repeating them.
You like Batohi haven't read the Cato Manor dockets yet you persist with casting aspersions on the person who actually based his decision on the contents of the dockets.
English
It really shouldn't be about how you feel about Batohi - it's irrelevant. What is however, is the evidence before you in the #NkabindeInquiry. I'm tempted to indulge you on missing dockets but I shan't as it's just deflection from Batohi's poor performance and abuse of power. Not to mention shady withdrawal of charges against butchers and paying them thereafter - issues you have not addressed.
Kenneth Diedricks@k_diedricks
If you listen to how the chair reacts to Chauke’s cross compared to how she reacted to Batohi’s cross, the difference is glaring. I say again, I do not like Batohi and agree she is a weak NDPP. Chauke on the other hand abused his position when making decisions on prosecution. His current attorney was implicated in corruption, the case was withdrawn and the docket disappeared. Now the same attorney represents him. But like I said, let’s agree to disagree.
English
I agree. I believe they could have added more charges if they had taken their time.
I am however looking at the cases referred to. In the review application by Booysen at the time, there was only three of the 290 statements that mentioned Booysen. And none of the three contained any evidence that he committed a crime.
Now that is a serious indictment on the process and decision making of Jiba who was influenced by Chauke. The fact that Chauke wanted to take that judgement on appeal is mind blowing as there existed no grounds for such a decision.
I will look at the SCA application brought by Freedom under law and determine whether this notion that the SCA found that Chauke acted rationally is interpreted correctly.
English
@k_diedricks @pinkykhoabane Theme problem is not the chair. Batohi & NPA rushed into creating the terms of reference which now comes back to bite them because the chair is very strict on sticking to the terms of reference of the inquiry . Batohi & NPA wants to amend the terms..
Pretoria, South Africa 🇿🇦 English
Kenneth- you obviously have not been watching the proceedings.
TORs for the inquiry - and these are Batohi's TORs.
Chauke’s handling of.
1..Withdrawal of racketeering charges against Johann Booysen & Cato Manor.
➡️De Kock Report exonerated Chauke. She hid the memo from Chauke & the President. Racketeering charges are the ambit of NDPP not the DPP
2. Withdrawing Mdhuli murder case and referring it to inquest.
➡️The SCA found he had acted rationally.
Those are the two areas Batohi complained about and she was proven wrong.
The rest of what you're saying is noise.
Kenneth Diedricks@k_diedricks
You want this to be about Batohi and her fitness to hold office but it is not. It is about Chauke and his fitness to hold office. You won’t indulge me about Chauke’s conduct because you seem intent on discrediting Batohi. You have said nothing about whether Chauke is fit to hold the office he is occupying. Funny that the apresident felt it appropriate to call for an inquiry based on evidence which was placed before him. The fact that Batohi made a bad witness does not exonerate Chauke.Going back and forth on this will not make us reach consensus.
English
Not at all. I expect the presiding officer to allow fair play and not give unnecessary free reign to advocate Ngcukaitobi to overstep when cross examining or when he makes comments. I also believe the evidence leaders should have stepped in to protect Advocate Batohi where necessary.
English
@k_diedricks @pinkykhoabane At the centre of this Inquiry was the Cato Manor death squad and Major Booysen. Were you expecting the chief protagonist, Adv Batohi, to be treated with kid gloves? Were you expecting Adv Chauke to roll over and play dead like a good mutt? Batohi made her bed...
English
@pinkykhoabane So you now moving away from your TOR statements because it does not support your previous statements as to what is contained in the TOR.
I will definitely read the SCA judgement and the review application by Booysen which went in his favour.
English
Maybe you should have watched proceedings before misleading us that you have. And go and read the SCA judgment yourself to satisfy yourself. Read the De Kock report. Sadly - you wont have insight into its flaws which were thoroughly ventilated. Not to mention the simple fact that De Kock exonerated Chauke.
There are YouTube recordings - go and watch and come back.
Kenneth Diedricks@k_diedricks
Pinky- I am not sure if you read the terms of reference. It clearly states that he is charged with supporting and recommending the racketeering charges. He also tried to influence the Acting Director in KZN. In addition, he prepared the answering affidavit for Jiba in opposing the review application by Booysen. He further instituted the appeal against the review judgement without approval from the NDPP. Attempted to have the charges re-instated after the review application was successful. I will read the court case to determine myself if indeed the court found he acted rationally and not these snippets going around on social media or YouTube. In addition, there are the allegations about not instituting the murder charges against Mdluli and related charges. Whilst Nkabinde is trying to discredit Batohi on technicalities regarding the racketeering charges (she today asked the evidence leader who has authority to institute racketeering charges), it loses sight of the role Chauke played in influencing those who made the decision and how the terms of reference are couched . This is what he always does. He influences those who makes decisions and want to deny involvement. So before you say someone did not read the terms of reference and making a noise because you want to justify the behavior of the presiding officer and of Chauke, please read the terms yourself.
English
If you listen to how the chair reacts to Chauke’s cross compared to how she reacted to Batohi’s cross, the difference is glaring. I say again, I do not like Batohi and agree she is a weak NDPP. Chauke on the other hand abused his position when making decisions on prosecution. His current attorney was implicated in corruption, the case was withdrawn and the docket disappeared. Now the same attorney represents him. But like I said, let’s agree to disagree.
English
Batohi wasn’t “badgered” she was cross-examined - it wasnt a tea party.
Evidence leaders couldn't coach or assist her mid-cross because that's the basic rule. It applies to everyone.
She triggered the #NkabindeInquiry, testified for weeks, then lied claiming Madam Chair assured her no cross-examination. When the Chair threatened to release the phone call recording, Batohi retracted, apologised in the passage... and was
forced to publicly mention the apology and reasons for it in the hearing.
Justice Nkabinde didn't "allow hearsay" - this is a fitness inquiry, not a criminal trial. Broader evidence (including hearsay elements in racketeering authorisations) has been admitted on both sides, just as in similar inquiries. Remember "the state capture noise" she testified on and couldn't corroborate?
Batohi wasn't denied refreshing memory on minor details; she struggled on core issues she herself raised in her referral. 'I can't remember" became her song.
Strong NDPPs answer questions. Weak ones lie, get caught, then flee.
Victim card rejected.
#NkabindeInquiry
Kenneth Diedricks@k_diedricks
Yes I did and to mention all of them will be long and legalistic. The simplest one is that hearsay evidence was allowed and Batohi was pressurized to answer questions without a chance to refresh her memory. This Judge allowed the witness to be badgered without intervening when the need arose. Also, the evidence leaders did not come to her aid in ensuring there is no badgering of the witness. Let me be clear, I do not like Batohi but also do not like it when presiding officers abuse their positions.
English
Hearsay is definitely relevant, whether a commission or in Court. It is impossible for any witness to respond to hearsay evidence because it is not possible to cross examine and test such evidence. Hearsay would be allowed under the law of evidence amendment act but must be applied for. I think we can agree to disagree on the panel’s fairness
English
@k_diedricks @pinkykhoabane It's a commission not a court, hearsay issue can't be the same. I probably wouldn't understand the legalistic issues. I started watching the commission because I kept seeing complaints about the chair. I went back to watch from day 1. As a lay person, I thought the panel is fair.
English
Yes I did and to mention all of them will be long and legalistic. The simplest one is that hearsay evidence was allowed and Batohi was pressurized to answer questions without a chance to refresh her memory. This Judge allowed the witness to be badgered without intervening when the need arose. Also, the evidence leaders did not come to her aid in ensuring there is no badgering of the witness. Let me be clear, I do not like Batohi but also do not like it when presiding officers abuse their positions.
English
@k_diedricks @pinkykhoabane Did you formulate the opinion through watching the inquiry proceedings?
What are the certain things that shouldn't have been allowed under cross examination?
English