Evidence exists that can lead to a conviction in the corruption trial of senior magistrate Ronnie Rambau and two other lawmen.

This was the finding of magistrate E K Patterson, following an application for dismissal brought by Rambau and his co-accused, attorney T E Lubisi and state prosecutor Estene Willemse.

One could hear a pin drop as Patterson read out his ruling in the Musina Regional Court last Thursday, especially since this application was widely regarded as a strategic ploy to buy the accused more time.

Rambau, together with Lubisi and Willemse, is accused of influencing the outcome of certain court cases. The main charges brought against them include corruption and conspiracy to commit corruption.

They were arrested in a police trap in February 2010. The trap was held within the Musina area, with the aim of catching corrupt officials who sabotage the course of justice by pre-determining the sentence of vehicle theft cases by means of a plea agreement. The three accused allegedly also received bribe money in murder and rape cases.

Their dismissal application was brought shortly after the State closed its case on 14 October this year. According to the application, the State’s evidence and witnesses are lacking in credibility.

Claims were also made in the application that police agents used in the trap went “beyond the mere creating of an opportunity” and “obtained information in an unlawful and intentional” way. According to the defence, the “voluntariness is diminished as the agent facilitated and persuaded the target.”

Rambau’s advocate, Mr Johan Hatting, compared some of the charges brought against his client as a “shotgun being pulled at night.” He argued that such charges constitute malicious prosecution against Rambau.

The defence also argued that the police did not adhere to surveillance law and infringed the three men’s rights at the time of their arrest, rendering everything that they might have said or anything that was found in their possession null and void. Willemse’s attorney proclaimed that  the R2 000 that was allegedly found in his possession, according to the State’s evidence, was not bribe money but in fact whiskey money.

Rambau and Lubisi, at a previous court appearance, offered an explanation for the money exchanged between them.  According to the two, the money that was found in their possession was money that Lubisi had paid to Rambau for a vehicle that Lubisi had bought from him.

In his ruling, Magistrate Patterson described the defence’s application as a “wide-ranging attack on evidence."

“Is it perhaps a desperate measure for the accused not to be placed on their defence?” Patterson asked.

“It would be disastrous to grant the application at this stage … I find there is evidence for the accused to reply to and that a prima facie case is made by the prosecution. The evidence suggests there are many issues mentioned in the evidence of the state witnesses which call for an explanation,” Patterson said.

After this, a clearly shell-shocked defence asked for a postponement in the case to prepare their evidence and witnesses.

The three men’s case was postponed to 21 May of next year, the earliest available date.