Danny Jordaan and his fraud co-accused play cat-and-mouse with legal system

The fraud case involving South African Football Association (Safa) president Danny Jordaan has once again been postponed. This time for the court to hear a fresh Section 342A application by Jordaan and his co-accused Gronie Hluyo (who is Safa’s chief of finance).

Their fellow co-accused, PR specialist Trevor Neethling and former Safa CEO Russell Paul, indicated they were not part of the matter and would study the merits thereof, then decide whether they wanted to join before the next court appearance on 25 May.

In the Criminal Procedure Act, Section 342A reads as follows: “A court before which criminal proceedings are pending shall investigate any delay in the completion of proceedings which appears to the court to be unreasonable and which could cause substantial prejudice to the prosecution, the accused or his/her legal adviser, the State or a witness.”

Section 342A again

In December 2024, a month after Jordaan and his co-accused were arrested for fraud within the national soccer federation, their legal representatives argued that the matter should be thrown out of court.

The lawyers said that due to a number of outstanding matters related to the court case that were pending in the high court, proceedings surrounding the fraud matter at the Palm Ridge Magistrate’s Court were moot. As a result, Jordaan and Hluyo brought forward a 342A application.

At the time, the State – through prosecutor Moagi Malebati – countered that the defence was pre-empting a delay because the matter had just begun. In addition, Molebati argued that the matters pending at the high court would not have too much of an impact on State’s overall case because it was solid.

Malebati said: “The applicants’ act of delving into the merits [of the case] at this stage is a clear tactic aimed at confusing the court, as well as a tactic to circumvent the trial procedure. The applicants are challenged to allow the proper trial of the matter wherein they will have ample opportunity to test and disprove the State’s evidence.”

Magistrate Sheron Soko-Rantao agreed with the State and dismissed the 342A application.

“I have not identified the delay, taking into account that the matter started in November. So, there is no delay. On that basis, I’m saying that section 342A is premature in these proceedings and this court is dismissing the application.”

However, when they appeared in court on 14 April, Jordaan and Hluyo’s legal representative told the court that they intend to bring forth another 342A application, saying they felt that over a year into pre-trial proceedings this second application was stronger.

This is even though the first such application remains unresolved as the defendants appealed against Soko-Rantao’s dismissal of it. This in addition to an appeal for the Hawks’ March 2024 search and seizure at Safa to be set aside.

Jordaan and Hluyo argue that the raid was “unlawful and malicious” and want the evidence seized by the State during the operation to be deemed inadmissible in court. That particular case is set down for 27 April.

A third court matter involves an urgent interdict that Hluyo and Jordaan tried to bring before the courts to prevent their arrests. They were arrested before the matter could be heard in court.

Despite the urgency falling away due to their arrests, the pair are still waiting for the matter to be heard, in the hope that their arrests will be cast aside. They accuse the State of being in contempt of court for taking them into custody.

It seems to be a cat-and-mouse game being played by the defendants, which may have major implications with Safa’s elections pencilled in for September 2026 and Jordaan looking to stand for a fourth successive term. DM