Three respondents were accused in a pending criminal trial in the Pietermaritzburg Regional Court. The second and third respondents were arrested on 8 July 2003 on drug-related charges (dealing in and possession of mandrax tablets). The first respondent was arrested on 15 December 2003. On 10 December 2003, the respondents' attorney was handed a draft charge sheet containing 14 counts, three of which related to racketeering offences under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA). The National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) provided written authorisation to prosecute the racketeering charges on 24 March 2004, as required by s 2(4) of POCA. A second identical charge sheet was handed to the respondents' attorney on 28 March 2004. The respondents had not yet been asked to plead. The respondents challenged the validity of the racketeering charges, arguing they had been 'charged' prior to the NDPP's written authorisation. The regional court dismissed their application on jurisdictional grounds. On review, the High Court set aside the racketeering counts, finding the NDPP's authorisation was too broad and lacked specificity. The appellant (NDPP) appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application with costs.
Once the National Director of Public Prosecutions has granted written authorisation to prosecute racketeering charges in terms of s 2(4) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998, the prosecution is lawful provided the accused has not yet pleaded, even if prior proceedings may have been irregular for want of such authorisation. The prosecution is not 'tainted' by any earlier procedural irregularity if the authorisation is obtained before the accused pleads. The State may withdraw and recharge an accused once authorisation is granted, but this is unnecessary if the accused has not pleaded.
Scott JA observed that the word 'charged' bears no defined or precise meaning in South African criminal procedure and derives much of its content from the particular statutory or constitutional context in which it is used. The court noted, following Sanderson v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape 1998 (1) SACR 227 (CC), that it is not useful to attempt a universally valid interpretation of such a vague word. The court also commented that the High Court's finding that the NDPP's authorisation was too broad and lacked necessary specificity was 'clearly not to be regarded as a precedent', though this ground had been abandoned by the respondents. The court observed that the fact that racketeering charges are being investigated would similarly affect bail decisions, not just formal charges.
This case provides important guidance on the interpretation and application of s 2(4) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998, particularly regarding the timing of the National Director of Public Prosecutions' written authorisation for racketeering charges. The judgment clarifies that provided written authorisation is given before an accused pleads, the prosecution is lawful under POCA, regardless of earlier procedural steps. The case demonstrates the flexibility of criminal procedure and the court's pragmatic approach to ensuring that technical defects do not prevent legitimate prosecutions where the statutory requirements are ultimately met. It also illustrates the contextual nature of interpreting the word 'charged' in different statutory and constitutional contexts.
Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate