Illustrative image: Nelson Mandela Bay Deputy Mayor Gary van Niekerk. (Photo: Lulama Zenzile / Die Burger / Gallo Images) | ACDP councillor Lance Grootboom. (Photo: Deon Ferreira) | (By Daniella Lee Ming Yesca) Judicial processes are unlikely to bend to political tantrums, despite a claim by Nelson Mandela Bay Deputy Mayor and National Alliance president Gary van Niekerk that the timing of his corruption trial could shape public perception ahead of the local government elections.
Speaking this week, Van Niekerk said he had initially refrained from publicly discussing the issue on the advice of his legal team, but has now, after new advice, decided to have his say.
He faces charges of cyberfraud and contravention of the Municipal Finance Management Act related to a legal bill of more than R550,000 that he racked up in 2022, which, according to the State, was fraudulent.
After several delays, some of Van Niekerk’s own making, it appears unlikely that the matter will be heard before November’s local government elections.
“I can see what’s going to happen here with my case. On the 24 July, we are only going [back to court] to narrow down the issues. There is no trial date before the elections.
“I can tell you that now already – they wanted to set the matter down for trial from 1 December. If the matter is only heard after the elections, I am going to suffer great prejudice,” Van Niekerk said.
“So it’s important that the public knows about this so that the public can make informed decisions when they go to elections and that I don’t suffer prejudice and they know the truth,” he added.
As part of helping people make “informed decisions” Van Niekerk has launched a criminal, political and professional attack on African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) councillor and attorney Lance Grootboom – the man who first laid the criminal complaint against him.
The reason his trial date has been delayed is, in part, because of a job creation jaunt Van Niekerk took to Germany last year. That trip, undertaken in the name of “creating jobs and saving lives”, ultimately triggered further court proceedings that led to his conviction and a fine for contempt of court.
Research and advocacy officer at Judges Matter Mbekezeli Benjamin said on Monday, 8 June, that a person’s statements – such as Van Niekerk’s – do not hold any sway in the courts.
“The courts will take their own decisions on the dates and the availability of the dates. There’s nothing that he can say, especially because he also is one of the contributors to the delays in the court case.
“So, that is something that the court will look at and will assess in determining the way forward on this case,” Benjamin said.
Responding to Van Niekerk’s public statements and the complaint he laid against Grootboom, the National Prosecuting Authority’s Luxolo Tyali said nothing could prevent an accused from speaking to the media or making criminal cases against complainants while the case is pending.
The ‘truth’ according to Van Niekerk
Part of the “truth” Van Niekerk wants to lay bare include allegations against Grootboom, which saw him open a criminal case and, within 24 hours, submit a motion for Grootboom’s referral to the council’s rules and ethics committee.
The charges Van Niekerk has laid against Grootboom appear to be retaliatory, given that the criminal case Van Niekerk now faces stems from allegations originally brought by Grootboom roughly three years ago.
The case against Van Niekerk
At the centre of the criminal case against Van Niekerk is the question of whether he had the authority to make decisions as council Speaker at the time.
He is accused of using a letterhead of the office of the Speaker of Council to obtain legal representation for himself during a period when he did not hold that position.
Speaking to Daily Maverick on Monday morning, Van Niekerk said “people must know the truth about Lance Grootboom” and accused him of perjuring himself.
Grootboom has rejected outright the perjury allegations levelled by Van Niekerk, describing them as a calculated attempt to distract attention from Van Niekerk’s own legal troubles.
/file/attachments/orphans/LanceGrootboom_133737_382791.jpg "ACDP councillor Lance Grootboom. (Photo: Deon Ferreira)")
Triple-pronged challenge to Grootboom
Eastern Cape police spokesperson Brigadier Nobuntu Gantana confirmed that Van Niekerk on Sunday, 7 June, opened a case of perjury at the Humewood police station.
Within 24 hours of opening the perjury case, Van Niekerk also filed a motion to have Grootboom referred to the council’s rules and ethics committee, the MEC for Cooperative Governance and the Legal Practice Council – a triple-pronged attack on the councillor, who is also a practising attorney.
Van Niekerk’s perjury complaint centres on evidence Grootboom allegedly submitted during separate legal proceedings tied to a political leadership dispute in the metro in 2022.
According to Van Niekerk, Grootboom signed a sworn confirmatory affidavit in High Court proceedings in which he accepted and supported court papers identifying Van Niekerk as Speaker.
Van Niekerk alleges that Grootboom later adopted a materially different stance when laying criminal charges against him, claiming he was not lawfully occupying the office of Speaker when key decisions were taken.
“That means, under oath, he accepted and supported the version of events presented to the High Court,” Van Niekerk said.
“However, at a later stage, Councillor Grootboom brought criminal charges against me in which he claimed the opposite – that I was not the Speaker at the time the relevant decisions were made.
“Both statements cannot be true at the same time.
“This contradiction is not a minor detail. It goes directly to the heart of the legal process and raises serious questions about whether sworn testimony has been used consistently and honestly.”
In response, Grootboom said there was no contradiction between his statements, because they referred to two different dates and entirely different legal circumstances.
“As the weight of the evidence against him mounts in a court of law, he is attempting to find scapegoats, manufacture conspiracies, and distract the public from his own pending criminal trial,” Grootboom said.
“The perjury allegation against me is entirely baseless. It relies on a deliberate distortion of two separate events occurring months apart. The facts are clear, unshakeable and fully supported by documentary evidence.”
Context matters
According to Grootboom, the dispute should be understood within the context of legal battles that surrounded Van Niekerk’s position in council during 2022.
He said Van Niekerk’s council seat was declared vacant on 22 March 2022 and that he was only formally reinstated several months later through a settlement agreement signed on 13 September.
Grootboom said there was no contradiction between his affidavits because they dealt with different events that occurred on different dates.
He explained that his confirmatory affidavit of August 2022 related only to what transpired at a council meeting held on 30 August 2022. Van Niekerk was permitted to attend that meeting under an interim court order, which was later extended to allow him to attend the continuation of the same meeting on 7 September 2022.
According to Grootboom, the urgent interim order granted Van Niekerk temporary permission to attend that specific meeting in order to perform his duties.
When the meeting could not be concluded on 30 August, the court issued a variation order allowing him to attend the continuation of the unfinished meeting on 7 September.
Grootboom said that acknowledging the council’s compliance with a temporary court order for a single meeting, and confirming former DA councillor Leander Kruger’s account of those events, did not change the fact that Van Niekerk was, in his view, legally out of office and had acted unlawfully months earlier on 8 June 2022. DM