Fadiel Adams granted bail as lawyer argues ‘no one owns witnesses’
· Citizen
The Pinetown Magistrate’s Court has granted bail of R10 000 to National Coloured Congress (NCC) leader and MP Fadiel Adams.
Visit rouesnews.click for more information.
The MP was arrested in connection with a fraud case and for defeating and/or obstructing the course of justice.
Police spokesperson Athlenda Mathe said he was arrested over allegations that he interfered with ongoing investigations into the murder of the late ANC Youth League leader Sindiso Magaqa.
On Friday, Adams’ legal representative, advocate Yuri Gangai, dismissed all the reasons the state presented in opposing him bail as “non-existent”.
Gangai argued that the state’s issue with Adams’ residential address was “non-existent”. The address he provided to the state is for a house in his wife’s name, and the state argued this was a cause for concern.
However, his defence said if all South Africans had to provide addresses of houses in their names, no one would qualify for bail.
“The argument that the deed is not in his name is inconsequential, because if so, it would mean most South Africans would not have a chance at bail if the requirement was that the deed of their residence had to be in their name,” argued Gangai.
“The state went to houses they knew he owned and then decided he’s got far too many addresses, it’s going to be difficult to find him, so we’re going to make it an issue. This issue is non-existent.”
Gangai further argued for his client’s release on bail, citing his family’s financial dependence on him.
On the state’s argument that Adams insulted the police and courts, Gangai said his client is known for using vulgar language, and this should not be grounds to deny him bail.
“My client is loud, outspoken, says what he thinks and is afraid of no one. He doesn’t use the most beautiful language when he speaks. But these are no grounds to deny him bail,” he said.
Defence argues for Adams’ release
Gangai presented a timeline of events, from the day the warrant of arrest was issued [30 April] to the day Adams was arrested [5 May]. He argued that when police went to arrest him at a house, Adams’ issue was that he was not sure if those people were legitimate police officers. Hence, he did not present himself to them.
“The reason I place this chronology on record so pertinently is that many things have happened in this short space of time that make it look like a long time had elapsed between the granting of the warrant and the arrest itself,” argued Gangai.
“This is particularly important when you consider that my colleague has argued that the accused was trying to prolong or delay his arrest. He didn’t run away and didn’t move to another country. He was available.”
However, the state argued that it was Adams himself who went live on Facebook and told the nation that the political killings task team (PKTT) went looking for him. This, according to the state, was evidence that he knew the police officers looking for him were legitimate, and that he decided to run away from what he calls a “rogue unit”.
Witness interference
On Wednesday, the state argued that if Adams were released on bail, he would influence or intimidate witnesses or destroy evidence.
“The applicant, upon learning of his imminent arrest, contacted a state witness several times, whom he knew was involved in the matter. He wanted the witness to send him a statement that he had made to the police in this investigation,” said the prosecutor.
“Even before his arrest, the applicant already interfered with the state witnesses and demanded a sworn statement that the witness made to the police.”
‘Self-made issue’
On Friday, Gangai argued that “no one owns witnesses”, and that Adams did not request the witness to lie, but only approached them to know what had been said about him.
“He’s not telling the witness, say this, don’t disclose that. He’s not saying lie about this or that or the other. He says, tell the truth. Write your statement. When he’s told that the police have already taken the statement from me, he stops calling. I don’t see the interference.
“An interference with this witness, Your Worship, is not the inference that can be brought from the conduct of Mr Adams. Mr Adams was the man in the middle of litigation. It is not unusual for someone who’s in the middle of litigation to start to bolster his version by securing statements from people who can potentially confirm that what he says is true.
“As far as the interference of witnesses and the likelihood, I submit that the state may well have a suspicion, but the evidence does not demonstrate that there are any grounds, or to put it differently, grounds that are supported by them that you should take into consideration to come to the conclusion that there is a likelihood that the accused will attempt to interfere with witnesses is non-existent. It’s a self-made belief that there will be interference. There is no evidence to demonstrate that.”
However, the state argued that Adams clearly asked the witness for a statement “he made to the police”. This, according to the state, shows Adams knew who the witness was in contact with.