Judge Spilg: Porritt Postponement Refusal in Tigon Trial

• Judge Brian Spilg of the High Court in Pretoria recently denied Gary Porritt's application for a postponement in the long-running Tigon criminal trial.
• Porritt, who is self-representing, proposed a defence strategy that would have extended the trial by an additional 12 years for witness and personal testimony.
• The accused, Gary Porritt and Susan Bennett, face over 3,000 charges, including fraud and Companies Act contraventions, in a trial that began in 2005.
• Judge Spilg's refusal cited the "umbrella consideration" of public interest and the effective administration of justice, pushing back against perceived dilatory tactics.
• The court noted the advanced age of the parties and the two-decade duration of the proceedings, emphasizing the need for finality.

The court's decision reflects a firm judicial stance against tactics perceived to unduly prolong trials.

Judge Brian Spilg, presiding in the High Court in Pretoria, recently rejected an application by Gary Porritt, an accused in the long-running Tigon criminal trial, for a further postponement of proceedings. Porritt, who is self-representing alongside co-accused Susan Bennett, sought to alter the standard criminal procedure by calling approximately 15 defence witnesses, including current and former South African Revenue Service (SARS) commissioners, before providing his own testimony.

The proposed timeline for these witnesses alone was estimated by Porritt to span five years. Following this, he indicated that his and Bennett's personal testimony and subsequent cross-examination would require an additional seven years. This application was made in a case where Porritt and Bennett face over 3,000 charges, encompassing alleged contraventions of the Companies Act, Income Tax Act, and Stock Exchange Control Act, as well as charges of fraud and racketeering.

In his ruling, Judge Spilg scrutinised Porritt's request, noting that even if his interpretation of criminal law precepts regarding the order of testimony were incorrect, a broader "umbrella consideration" must prevail. This consideration prioritises the interests of the state, the public, and the effective administration of justice, ensuring that public faith in the judicial system is not undermined. The judge emphasized that, without demonstrating good cause and considering the documentation presented, the requested postponement could not be granted.

The court's decision reflects a firm judicial stance against tactics perceived to unduly prolong trials. Judge Spilg referenced a May 2026 judgment from KwaZulu-Natal Judge Nkosinathi Chili in the Zuma and Thales trial, which described the "Stalingrad defence" as a strategy employed by criminal defence lawyers that delays justice and impedes the speedy trials guaranteed by the Constitution. To mitigate such delays, Judge Spilg had previously issued directions in late October 2025, mandating the timely issuance of subpoenas by the accused to prevent gaps between witness testimonies.

The criminal trial against Porritt and Bennett has been exceptionally protracted, having commenced in 2005. The initial presiding judge, Geraldine Borchers, recused herself from the matter in 2011. Since then, Judge Spilg has faced numerous applications for his own recusal, all of which he has denied. Notably, in November 2022, the Constitutional Court dismissed an application by Susan Bennett challenging Judge Spilg's 2020 refusal to recuse himself, underscoring the finality of his continued involvement.

This case highlights the challenges of maintaining judicial efficiency in complex, long-running matters. Judge Spilg observed that despite the trial beginning two decades ago, the presentation of evidence has already spanned ten years. He further noted the advanced age of all parties involved, with both accused and the judge himself being past their mid-70s, raising concerns about the risk of the case never reaching finality. The court also determined that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Porritt, providing him with examples of material relevant to his defence.

This judgment signals a firm judicial stance against protracted trial delays and 'Stalingrad strategies,' even in complex, long-running criminal cases. Lawyers should advise clients that courts, particularly in South Africa, are increasingly prioritizing the 'interest of justice' and the efficient administration of justice over perceived dilatory tactics, impacting the viability of extensive postponement applications and overall criminal defence strategy.

Source: Reporting based on recent High Court proceedings.