31 July 2019 Claims by defence attorney Peter Daubermann on behalf of Omotoso, 60, and his co-accused Lusanda Sulani, 36, and Zukiswa Sitho, 28, that the state did not bother to investigate and determine specific dates and placed of claims of alleged rape and human trafficking of at least 21 young women were some of the main reasons for Daubermann to file an application to the court to make an order to compel the state to provide further particulars to the 97 charges the trio face. Pictured Defence attorney Peter Daubermann
Picture Eugene Coetzee/The Herald
Omotoso rape trial: Daubermann’s defiance prompts case postponement
The new judge will have to rule on the defence’s appeal to force the court to reduce its charges against Omotoso.
31 July 2019 Claims by defence attorney Peter Daubermann on behalf of Omotoso, 60, and his co-accused Lusanda Sulani, 36, and Zukiswa Sitho, 28, that the state did not bother to investigate and determine specific dates and placed of claims of alleged rape and human trafficking of at least 21 young women were some of the main reasons for Daubermann to file an application to the court to make an order to compel the state to provide further particulars to the 97 charges the trio face. Pictured Defence attorney Peter Daubermann
Picture Eugene Coetzee/The Herald
The trial against televangelist, Timothy Omotoso, and the two co-accused, Zukiswa Sitho and Lusanda Sulani, has suffered yet another postponement.
Why has Omotoso trial been postponed?
Since the rape and human trafficking trial against the leader of the Jesus Dominion International Church returned to the Port Elizabeth High Court’s role, it has been marred by delays.
This time around, the case has been postponed for consideration after Omotoso’s defence, led by the infamous Advocate Peter Daubermann, launched a bid to have most of the 97 charges he faces dealt with in the different cities the respective crimes were allegedly committed.
The arguments: Both sides of the coin
Proceedings kicked off on Monday morning with the defence lodging an application to appeal Judge Irma Schoeman’s decision to dismiss the attempt to have the charges against Omotoso and co. reduced.
Daubermann’s contention, for the most part, has been centred around the lack of sufficient information on the charge sheets and that some of the 97 charges are not accompanied by corresponding information such as where the crime occurred and what the nature of the charge is.
He argued that the authorisation of the centralisation of multiple charges that was signed off by the NPA’s former National Director of Public Prosecutions, Shaun Abrahams, was invalid.
“No one can know what offences the National Director was referring to because he does not state those offences. The fact that the jurisdiction was not taken at the previous trial is irrelevant,” he said.
The States’ Nceba Ntelwa, on the contrary, countered Daubermann’s submissions by stating that, according to the Supreme Court of Appeals Act, there is no reason why the charge details listed in the charge sheet needed to be replicated in the certificate of authorisation.
Ntwela rubbished Daubermann’s appeal as another delay tactic and pleaded with Judge Schoeman to dismiss it.
When will the court make its ruling?
After hearing both arguments, the judge noted that proceedings will continue on Wednesday, 14 August, where she will rule on the defence’s appeal.
“Your ladyship would have realised by now that you missed the judgement and in that alone, you ought to grant leave to appeal,” Daubermann said before the court was adjourned.
