After spending 14 months behind bars, businessman Rushil Singh is set to return to the Palm Ridge Specialised Commercial Crime Court on Thursday for his long-awaited bail hearing. The move comes as the State’s case continues to unravel, with key witnesses making damaging admissions that have cast doubt on the legitimacy of the prosecution’s claims.
Singh has been detained on charges of fraud, forgery, and uttering, relating to bank guarantees allegedly issued by Stanbic Bank Ghana Limited on behalf of his company, Big Business Innovations Group (Pty) Ltd (BIG). These guarantees were allegedly presented to Investec Bank to secure loans worth more than R178 million, which Stanbic Ghana later denied issuing.
Witness Testimony Unravels the Case
The prosecution’s first witness made several major concessions under oath, revealing that the two affidavits used to obtain Singh’s arrest warrant did not implicate him in any wrongdoing. These documents were the only basis for his detention, calling into question the lawfulness of his arrest.
The witness also admitted that a third affidavit, introducing new allegations against Singh, was created only after the death of his sister, Nishani Singh, the company’s former financial director and operational lead. The defence argues that this posthumous affidavit was a manufactured attempt to shift blame once Nishani could no longer defend herself.
In another critical admission, the witness confirmed that the signature on the disputed financial statements was not Singh’s, but that of another company director—corroborating the defence’s position that he was falsely linked to forged documents he neither signed nor authorised.
These revelations contradict the State’s previous claim that its investigation was complete at the time of Singh’s arrest. Instead, the evolving witness testimony suggests a case built on speculation and unverified claims, not hard evidence.
Judicial Concerns and Defence Reaction
The court’s growing scepticism was underscored when Magistrate Venter rejected the prosecution’s attempt to amend the charge sheet, citing concerns about the integrity of the case. The magistrate warned that the State cannot continuously alter its theory to compensate for weaknesses in its evidence.
Despite these developments, Singh remains in detention. His defence team has described his continued incarceration as a “gross miscarriage of justice,” arguing that no direct evidence links him to the alleged offences.
Singh’s lawyers maintain that he was wrongfully arrested on the basis of false affidavits and that the proven forgery of key documents should exonerate him. They argue the State’s “shifting narrative” demonstrates a lack of credible evidence, and that bail should be granted immediately.
Broader Implications
The case has exposed potential flaws in the Hawks’ investigation and raised broader concerns about prosecutorial accountability in financial crime cases. Observers note that Singh’s detention—built on disputed affidavits and altered evidence—highlights systemic weaknesses in how complex financial investigations are handled.
With Thursday’s hearing approaching, all eyes are on whether the court will finally grant Singh bail. The outcome may not only determine his immediate freedom but also set a precedent for how South African courts handle questionable prosecutions built on shifting evidence and procedural lapses.
