The Durban High Court had to adjourn early on Wednesday in the money laundering case of Zandile Gumede and 21 others due to one of the accused having a condition that had him in and out of the toilet.
This was after the long adjournment of a one-hour lunch break.
The defence counsel, advocate Sicelo Zungu, told the court that his client, accused six Mthokozisi Nojiyeza, would not be able to sit in court and listen attentively to what was being said.
He asked for the matter to be postponed to Thursday.
The accused face numerous charges, including money laundering, racketeering, fraud, corruption, and contravention of the Municipal Finance Management Act and the Municipal Systems Act relating to the R300 million Durban Solid Waste (DSW) tender.
“He (Nojiyeza) advises me that he has a condition that necessitates him to be in and out of the toilet,” Zungu explained.
There was light laughter as Judge Sharmaine Balton said: “Let's just call it diarrhoea.”
She then asked for the State's opinion.
The State said it was in the court's hands.
Balton adjourned the matter.
Before lunchtime, defence counsel advocate Jimmy Howse SC continued with his cross-examination of a State witness who is a contract administrator of eThekwini.
Howse is representing eThekwini deputy of supply chain management Sandile Ngcobo, a fifth accused.
Howse had been questioning this witness, who we cannot name as per court order, on why she did not give the compliance monitoring unit the necessary documents for compliance checks before the Bid Adjudication Committee (BAC) meeting as it was her duty.
The witness kept on explaining that normal procedures were not followed as the DSW unit tried to secure experienced service providers to collect waste beyond December 2017.
The court has heard that because it was an emergency, the unit had to deviate from normal procedures.
Contracts of the companies that were collecting waste were expiring on December 31, 2017, and the DSW unit wanted to extend their contracts as they were not going to be able to screen new bidders on time.
This witness had told the court that they needed the BAC to approve this and that she was under pressure to get the report and all relevant documents to the committee.
She told the court that she went to the Compliance Unit to seek a signature before the BAC meeting.
She explained that the procedure was that compliance checks needed to be done before the report went to the BAC.
“Tender awards could not be issued unless compliance checks are done?” asked Howse.
The witness said yes.
Howse asked the witness why she did not leave the documents as she had them when she went to get a signature.
The witness said she did not think about this at the time. She referred Howse to other exhibits to justify her answer.
However, Howse said she had not given him a clear answer.
“I can see that I have put you in a tight spot and you are trying your level best to explain this,” he added.
Judge Balton stopped Howse and said he must not say the witness was in a tight spot.
Additionally, the witness said before she got the signature at compliance, she explained to the manager of this unit that this was an emergency and she had to get to BAC.
The manager signed and put a condition that compliance checks were not done.
The trial continues.