Thoshan Panday challenges delays in long-running 2010 World Cup fraud case - IOL
Durban businessman Thoshan Panday is expected to appear in the Durban High Court on Friday.
Durban businessman Thoshan Panday is expected to appear in the Durban High Court on Friday to hear whether the criminal case against him, which dates back to 2010, is dismissed on the grounds of unreasonable delays.
Panday has filed court papers calling for judicial intervention and for the case to be dropped. He was arrested amid allegations of procurement irregularities involving accommodation for police officers during the 2010 World Cup. Panday is facing charges including racketeering and fraud.
Panday brought the application before the High Court in terms of section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act. This empowers a court to investigate delays in criminal proceedings and determine whether they have become unreasonable.
The application concerns criminal proceedings arising from events alleged to have occurred in 2010. Panday was arrested in October 2020, and the matter has therefore been pending without the trial having commenced.
In his application, the central issue raised by the defence is the prolonged and, in its submission, unreasonable delay associated with the State’s disclosure of information and material required by Panday to prepare his defence properly.
“The defence first formally sought further information in April 2021. Over the years that followed, a series of further requests were made, and the matter was repeatedly adjourned in an attempt to resolve the outstanding disclosure issues,” the document states.
“Ultimately, the accused approached the High Court for an order compelling the State to provide the outstanding information. That application succeeded, and in June 2024 the High Court ordered the State to provide the information identified in the order within 21 days.”
The document claims that the State thereafter sought leave to appeal aspects of that order. Importantly, the defence contends that certain material which the State itself accepted the defence was entitled to receive fell outside the ambit of the appeal and nevertheless remained outstanding.
“The defence case is therefore not based simply upon the passage of time. It is based upon the history of the proceedings, the repeated attempts by the accused to obtain disclosure, the orders made by the court, the subsequent appeal process and the continuing effect of the outstanding disclosure on the accused’s ability to prepare for trial,” the document states.
“The relief sought is an order in terms of section 342A(3)(c) striking the criminal proceedings from the roll and directing that the prosecution may not be resumed or instituted afresh without the written instruction of the Director of Public Prosecutions,” the document states.
Panday said he would be represented by three senior counsel: Advocates Mike Hellens, Jay Naidoo and Jimmy Howse.
“Anyone in this situation will find it takes a toll on their health. I have been trying to clear my name for years,” he said.
