The future of a long-running 2010 FIFA World Cup corruption case remains uncertain after the Durban High Court reserved judgment in an application by businessman Thoshan Panday and eight co-accused to have the criminal proceedings struck off because of alleged unreasonable delays.
- Defence says disclosure delays have prevented a fair trial
- What the accused are asking the court to do
- State says it has been ready to proceed
- Why the disclosure dispute matters
- Who is facing charges?
- The alleged R47 million SAPS connection
- A case that has remained unresolved for years
- Judgment now awaited
The application was heard on Friday, with the defence arguing that years of delays in obtaining information from the State have compromised the accused’s ability to prepare for trial.
The State strongly disputes that characterisation.
Senior State Advocate Talita Louw, representing the National Prosecuting Authority’s Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), told the court that the prosecution has been ready to proceed and has made substantial disclosure to the defence.
Panday’s application is brought under section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows a court to investigate delays in criminal proceedings and determine whether they have become unreasonable.
Defence says disclosure delays have prevented a fair trial
The defence’s case is not simply that the proceedings have taken a long time.
According to the accused’s court papers, the central complaint concerns the repeated delays in obtaining information and material they say is necessary to properly prepare their defence.
The defence says it first formally requested further information in April 2021.
Further requests followed, with the matter repeatedly postponed while attempts were made to resolve outstanding disclosure issues.
The accused eventually approached the High Court for an order compelling the State to provide the information.
In June 2024, the High Court ordered the State to provide specified information within 21 days. The defence says subsequent legal proceedings over aspects of that order resulted in further delays, while material that was not subject to the appeal remained outstanding.
The defence therefore argues that the delay must be considered in the context of the entire history of the case — including repeated disclosure requests, court orders and the continuing difficulty in obtaining material required for trial preparation.
What the accused are asking the court to do
The defence wants the criminal proceedings struck from the court roll under section 342A(3)(c).
It further seeks an order preventing the prosecution from being resumed or instituted afresh without the written instruction of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
That is a significant remedy because it would prevent the current prosecution from simply continuing after another postponement.
The defence argues that the accused have already suffered substantial prejudice from the length of the proceedings and the continuing uncertainty surrounding the case.
State says it has been ready to proceed
The prosecution rejects the suggestion that the case has stalled because the State is not ready.
Louw told the court that the State has been ready for trial from the outset and has disclosed material to the defence, including 31 intercepted communications and their transcriptions.
She said some of the material had to be obtained from Crime Intelligence and raised concerns about protecting sensitive information and the identities of informants.
According to Louw, the State was prepared to provide controlled access to the material rather than give the defence unrestricted possession of sensitive documents.
She said the prosecution had proposed that the defence sign a memorandum of understanding governing how the information could be handled.
The State also offered the defence access to a laptop containing the software required to listen to coded recordings, according to Louw.
She argued that the defence had also failed to comply with certain court orders and prescribed timelines.
Why the disclosure dispute matters
The case highlights a difficult tension in complex corruption prosecutions.
Defendants are entitled to sufficient information to prepare their cases, but prosecutors can face legitimate concerns where evidence includes sensitive intelligence material, confidential sources or intercepted communications.
The court must therefore consider not merely how much time has passed, but why the delays occurred, who was responsible for them, what prejudice has resulted and whether the proceedings can still be conducted fairly.
That is the purpose of section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The defence argues that the accumulated delays have reached the point where continuing the prosecution would be unfair.
The State, meanwhile, maintains that it has taken steps to facilitate disclosure while protecting sensitive material and that the case remains capable of proceeding.
Who is facing charges?
Panday is one of nine accused in the matter.
The accused include former KwaZulu-Natal provincial commissioner Lieutenant General Mmamonye Ngobeni, former SAPS Colonel Navin Madhoe and former SAPS Captain Ashwin Narainpershad.
The remaining accused are Panday’s mother Arevenda Panday, his wife Privisha Panday, his sister Kajal Ishwarkumar, his brother-in-law Seveesh Maharaj Ishwarkumar, and his personal assistant Tasleem Rahiman.
They face allegations including racketeering, fraud, corruption, money laundering and forgery relating to events between March 2009 and April 2010.
None of the accused has been convicted in this matter, and the allegations remain before the court.
The alleged R47 million SAPS connection
At the heart of the prosecution is an alleged procurement scheme linked to accommodation arranged for police personnel during the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
The State alleges that Panday effectively controlled several entities that received approximately R47 million from SAPS, and that the payments were connected to an allegedly corrupt relationship with members of the police service’s Supply Chain Management Division.
The allegations date back more than 16 years, although the current group of accused were arrested and joined to the case much later.
Panday and some of the other accused were arrested in October 2020, while additional family members and Rahiman were joined to the matter in 2021.
A case that has remained unresolved for years
The length of the proceedings is central to the defence’s application.
The alleged offences date back to the period surrounding the 2010 World Cup, yet the criminal trial has not reached the stage of final adjudication.
The defence has pointed to repeated disclosure disputes and postponements as evidence that the prosecution has taken too long.
The State’s position is fundamentally different: it says it has been ready to proceed and that outstanding issues relate largely to the handling of sensitive evidence rather than an inability to present its case.
That disagreement now leaves the High Court with the task of determining whether the delay has crossed the legal threshold of being unreasonable.
Judgment now awaited
With oral arguments completed, the High Court has reserved judgment.
Until the court delivers its ruling, the criminal case remains active and the charges against Panday and his co-accused remain unresolved.
The eventual decision will determine whether the prosecution continues towards trial or whether the court grants the defence’s application under section 342A.
For now, the central question is not whether the allegations have been proved, but whether the State has taken too long to bring the accused to trial while ensuring they have the information necessary to answer the case against them.
