Mapisa-Nqakula: Section 174 Discharge Application Filed in Corruption Trial

• Former minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula's legal team has filed a Section 174 discharge application in her R4.55 million corruption trial.
• The defence argues the State's evidence is too weak for conviction, particularly lacking proof of a *quid pro quo* for alleged bribes.
• The State's case relies heavily on the testimony of businesswoman Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu and unconfirmed WhatsApp messages.
• Mapisa-Nqakula's lawyers contend that even if money changed hands, the State has not shown what she was meant to do in return.
• A decision on the discharge application from the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria is expected within approximately one week.

The defence argues that even though the State has presented evidence about money allegedly changing hands, it has not shown what Mapisa-Nqakula was supposed to do in return.

Former defence minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula's legal team has formally requested her discharge from a R4.55 million corruption and money laundering trial. The application, lodged on Monday at the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria, seeks to halt proceedings under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, arguing that the State has failed to present sufficient evidence to secure a conviction against her.

At the core of the State's case is businesswoman Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, an SANDF contractor, who is alleged to have paid approximately R4.55 million in bribes to Mapisa-Nqakula during her tenure as defence minister. However, Mapisa-Nqakula's defence contends that despite evidence suggesting money may have changed hands, the prosecution has not established the crucial element of *quid pro quo* — what Mapisa-Nqakula was expected to do in return for these payments. The outcome of this Mapisa-Nqakula Section 174 discharge application is anticipated within approximately one week.

The defence's argument hinges on the high evidentiary burden required to prove corruption, particularly the necessity of demonstrating a direct exchange or understanding for a benefit. Siyabulela Mapoma SC, representing Mapisa-Nqakula, emphasized this point, stating that there was "absolutely no evidence at all by Nombasa that she paid the money to the accused in order for the accused to do anything or not to do anything or something to benefit Nombasa or any other person." This highlights a significant challenge for the State in proving quid pro quo bribery in South Africa, even when financial transactions are apparent.

Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act ZA allows an accused to be discharged at the close of the State's case if the court finds there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, or if the evidence presented is so weak that no reasonable court could convict. The defence asserts that the State's case against Mapisa-Nqakula falls into this category, rendering a continuation of the Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula corruption trial unwarranted.

The defence further undermined the State's case by pointing to several perceived weaknesses in the evidence presented. They argued that the prosecution's case relies heavily on the testimony of a single witness, Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, whose evidence was reportedly contradicted during the trial. The reliability of this key Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu testimony has been called into question.

Additionally, the defence raised concerns about the admissibility and weight of WhatsApp messages presented as evidence, asserting that their reliability could not be definitively confirmed. These challenges to the State's primary evidence sources underscore the defence's position that the prosecution has failed to build a robust case capable of securing a conviction, a sentiment seemingly echoed by Judge Mashudu Munzhelele, who reportedly appeared surprised by an admission made by Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu during her testimony.

This Gauteng High Court discharge application underscores the critical importance of establishing a clear *quid pro quo* in corruption cases, even when substantial sums of money are alleged to have changed hands. The defence's stance that the State has not shown what Mapisa-Nqakula was supposed to do in return, despite evidence of alleged payments, sets a high bar for prosecutors.

The outcome of this application will be closely watched, as it could have significant implications for how corruption cases are prosecuted in South Africa. It reinforces the principle that merely demonstrating the transfer of funds is insufficient; the State must conclusively prove the corrupt intent and the reciprocal benefit or action. This case serves as a stark reminder of the rigorous evidentiary standards required to secure convictions in complex white-collar crime trials.

This case underscores the high evidentiary burden on the State to prove *quid pro quo* in corruption cases, even when money has changed hands, which is a critical point for defence lawyers challenging charges and for compliance officers assessing the robustness of anti-bribery frameworks.

Source: Original reporting via AllAfrica