The appellants were among several accused charged in the regional court with multiple offences, including fraud and racketeering, arising from an alleged scheme to defraud the South African Revenue Service (SARS) of approximately R264 million between 1998 and 2002. The trial commenced in 2004 and ran for several years. Senior counsel and an advocate employed by SARS prosecuted the matter on behalf of the State under written engagements purportedly authorised by the Director of Public Prosecutions in terms of the National Prosecuting Authority Act 32 of 1998. After the State closed its case, and several years into the trial, the accused challenged the authority and appointment of the prosecutors, relying on alleged non-compliance with statutory requirements and the decision in Bonugli. The magistrate upheld the challenge and acquitted the accused who raised it. On appeal by the State, the High Court set aside that decision and remitted the matter to the magistrate for continuation of the trial. The accused then sought to appeal the remittal order to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was struck from the roll.
The case is significant for reaffirming the strong South African judicial policy against piecemeal appeals in criminal proceedings and clarifying that remittal orders directing a trial to continue are generally not appealable. It underscores the constitutional imperative of expeditious criminal trials and limits attempts by accused persons to delay proceedings through interlocutory appeals, even where constitutional or prosecutorial-authority arguments are raised.