Defence attorney Victor Nkwashu, representing Jordaan and Hluyo, challenged the state's readiness to proceed with the case.
Attempts by South African Football Association (Safa) president Danny Jordaan to have fraud charges withdrawn have failed, with prosecutors revealing that new stacks of evidence have emerged during the investigation.
The Palm Ridge Magistrate’s Court heard on Friday that representations made by Jordaan, Safa Chief Financial Officer Groni Hluyo, and businessman Trevor Neethling to drop the charges were unsuccessful.
State prosecutor Moagi Malebati told the court that the new evidence actually strengthened the case against the trio.
He revealed that 64 gigabytes of new evidence have emerged during the state’s investigation.
The three accused face charges of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud relating to the alleged misappropriation of R1.3 million from Safa resources.
They were arrested in November 2024 and charged with three counts of fraud, three counts of theft, and conspiracy to commit fraud and theft.
Email evidence leads to major discovery
The breakthrough came when prosecutors examined email correspondence submitted by the defence as part of their representations to have charges dropped.
“After we received the accused’s representation, we realised that the emails attached in support of their application were selective. They did not paint the full picture,” Malebati explained to the court.
This prompted investigators to approach Afrihost, the email hosting company, with a section 205 subpoena requesting complete email records.
“A section 205 was submitted, and they adhered to it, and in response to our request, they provided us with 64GB worth of emails, which gave us more evidence for this matter,” Malebati said.
The prosecutor revealed that this massive trove of data covered the period from 2017 to recent years and contained far more incriminating evidence than the selective emails initially provided by the defence.
ALSO READ: Safa boss Danny Jordaan’s fight to ditch fraud charges stalled by NPA changes
New acting prosecutor rejects representations
Recently appointed acting South Gauteng Director of Public Prosecutions Livingston Sakata made the decision to reject the representations after reviewing the new evidence.
The decision came after months of delays following the suspension of the previous director, Andrew Chauke, in June by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Defence attorney James Ndebele, representing Neethling and his company Grit Communications, expressed frustration at the process.
He told the court he had requested a meeting with Sakata before any decision was made.
“Prior to your making a decision on our representations, we request that you kindly afford the right of hearing and opportunity to meet with you and your deputies at your office,” Ndebele said, reading from correspondence he had sent to the acting prosecutor.
However, no response was received to this request. Ndebele said he only learned of the decision through correspondence received at 8pm the night before the court appearance.
“We were practically ambushed with documents which were not disclosed to the defence,” Ndebele argued.
Defence challenges investigation completeness
Defence attorney Victor Nkwashu, representing Jordaan and Hluyo, challenged the state’s readiness to proceed with the case.
He pointed out that the acting prosecutor had acknowledged in writing that investigations were ongoing.
“The acting DPP says the investigations are ongoing, which means they are not complete. They can’t be ready to go to trial, and the person sees the matter and wants to go to trial, but the one who is in charge says, ‘No, I’m still investigating, and I’m going to give you new disclosure,” Nkwashu argued.
He also disputed the prosecution’s claim that the accused had not cooperated with investigators.
“As late as 15 December 2022, Accused Number 1 sent a statement containing information which the state requested to the investigating officer,” Nkwashu said.
He added that the search and seizure at Safa House only took place on 8 March 2024.
ALSO READ: Embarrassment for Safa as they can’t pay salaries on time
High court applications complicate proceedings
The case has been further complicated by high court applications challenging the search and seizure operations conducted at Safa House.
Jordaan and Hluyo have filed for a review of these operations, with the matter set down for 8 October 2025.
Malebati dismissed suggestions that these applications were causing undue delays, calling them “self-created emergencies” by the defence.
“We’ve been saying this from day one, that ‘abandon those high court applications’. Whatever relief you’re seeking can be addressed by this forum—the criminal court—which can be addressed in a trial within a trial,” the prosecutor said.
He argued that the high court applications were strategic moves designed to create delays rather than address legitimate legal concerns.
Charge sheet amendments raise concerns
Defence attorney Nkwashu raised concerns about the state’s intention to amend the charge sheet, highlighting previous changes that had seen charges removed.
“There was a time when the charge sheet was amended by removing charges against Mr Jordaan and Mr Floyd Kruin. From the charge sheet, they were charged for an amount of about one million rand, just under one million rand, as theft,” Nkwashu explained.
He said these charges were later removed when it was discovered that the money in question was actually for legitimate hotel accommodation payments.
“So when they say they’re going to amend the charge sheet, the history of them amending the charge sheet, where they’ve already portrayed the accused as thieves. Now that cannot be left unchallenged,” Nkwashu argued.
ALSO READ: Jordaan’s fresh bid to have fraud case struck from the roll as state withdraws theft charges
State confident despite defence objections
Despite the defence’s objections and calls to have the matter struck from the roll, Malebati maintained that the state was ready to proceed with the prosecution.
“Are we ready to proceed? Yes, we are. We do have enough evidence,” the prosecutor stated.
He explained that even if the high court ruled against the admissibility of evidence obtained during the search and seizure, the state still had sufficient evidence from the original complaint to proceed.
“Our case is ready. With or without such decision information, we are prepared, we are ready to proceed with the matter,” Malebati said.
Matter postponed for progress report
Magistrate Soko-Rantao postponed the matter to 21 November 2025, directing that the state provide a progress report on outstanding issues.
“On that date, the state will report the progress they have made, and your counsel will respond to that data. From there, we’ll see what happens,” the magistrate said.
The postponement will allow time for the high court review application to be heard and for the defence to consider their options following the rejection of their representations.
Defence attorneys indicated they may approach the National Director of Public Prosecutions to review Sakata’s decision.
All three accused remain out on bail and have been complying with their bail conditions throughout the proceedings.
NOW READ: Parking the bus: How Safa boss Danny Jordaan is lining up his defence in R1.3m fraud case [VIDEO]
