Today, the State and defence clashed in court over the introduction of new evidence in the money laundering and fraud case of former mayor of eThekwini Zandile Gumede and 21 others.
Today at the Durban High Court, the defence said it was not informed in advance about which evidence would be introduced and which documents would be used.
The accused are all charged with conspiracy to commit corruption, fraud, money laundering, racketeering, and contravention of the Municipal Finance Management Act and the Municipal Systems Act relating to the Durban Solid waste R300 million tender.
The State brought a new witness on Tuesday morning who testified virtually.
A court order was made for media to not name any of the State witnesses fearing for their safety.
As the witness was leading her evidence in chief, advocate Reshma Athmaram, counsel appointed by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said she would introduce new documents that are emails to be admitted as exhibits in this trial.
Advocate Jimmy Howse SC, counsel for Sandile Ngcobo, the fifth accused, said they were not given these email documents in advance.
Athmaram said the defence was sent an email in June 2024 in which it noted the list of witnesses, including today's witness who took the stand, and on the other it was indicated which exhibits were going to be used.
Other defence counsels agreed with Howse. A five-minute adjournment was taken for counsels to check their emails, as advocate Willie Lombard said he had the email which he had printed.
The defence counsels looked at their emails and they seemed dissatisfied. After that short adjournment the state still insisted that emails were sent. Some defence counsels said they did not receive it while others said it was not sufficient.
Judge Sharmaine Balton said senior state advocate Ashika Lucken must be responsible for ensuring that everyone is told three days prior on which documents would be used.
Before Athmaram attempted to bring in new evidence, the state witness said her duties included preparing tender documents, draft committee reports for committees like the Bid adjudication committee (BAC), Bid evaluation committee and executive acquisitions committee (EAC).
She further admitted that it was her responsibility to take items to compliance monitoring should the Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) raise compliance issues in a report.
Witness X who finished his re-examination on Monday had told the court that the current witness requested him to endorse the extension of tender contracts for collection of waste in 2017 as it was an emergency.
“She said this was urgent and the BAC was waiting for the report. She said waste had not been collected as the contracts of service providers expired in November 2017,” Witness X explained.
Witness X said when he signed for the extension he asked this witness about compliance checks and said he then put up a condition that compliance checks were not done.
Witness X then said till this day he never saw the compliance checks documents.
The trial continues.