The DPP asked to provide reasons for decision not to prosecute
For updates, new stories, and additional comment, click here to follow @DrewanBaird on twitter
Drewan Baird. Oudtshoorn. 17 July 2014. 07h10. While In a strongly worded letter, the acting municipal manager yesterday wrote the director of public prosecutions asking for reasons why Nic Barrow, Pierre Nel, and Ben van Wyk are not being prosecuted in the so-called “Nel-Settlement” – an attempt to land Nel’s personal legal cost in the laps of Oudtshoorn’s ratepayers.
The MM writes:
Being the complainant in the abovementioned matter I respectfully request detailed reasons for your decision not to prosecute.
At the very least it was expected that you would have found that an attempted fraud had been committed.
Moreover I would be extremely grateful if you would grant the indulgence of an indication of any and all lacunae in the evidential material gathered by the South African Police investigators, and afford me the opportunity to remedy any shortcomings in the case.
I also request that you, at the very least, give consideration to reporting attorney Nic Barrow to the Cape Law Society for irregularities which, with the greatest respect, are clearly evident from a reading of the police docket and documentary exhibits. One merely has to have regard for the comments of Judge Nathan Erasmus in his judgement in Pierre André Nel v. Oudtshoorn Municipality (18083/2010 June 7, 2011, attached) in the Cape High Court, to gauge the measure of Barrow’s indiscretions and his subsequent behaviour in endeavouring to have the Oudtshoorn ratepayers stand good for the legal fees arising from various appeals to the SCA and in respect of the fallacious Constitutional Court appeal.
I would appreciate your dealing with this matter as one of great importance to the community of Oudtshoorn. Once your response and reasons are received, I shall seek counsel’s opinion and consider my options. There are a number of private parties, inter alia irate ratepayers, who would like feedback as to why this matter did not proceed to Court and who are seriously considering conducting a private prosecution.
The Erasmus judgement – click here – is attached to the letter. Further comment would be superfluous. Mr Justice Erasmus, “daai boesman magistraat”, as Barrow calls him, says it all.
What an outrageous thing to say about a high court judge! Unbelievable! And at bottom, simply rude, after the lunacy of the exclamation has sunk in.
I reported yesterday, somewhat tongue in cheek, that the DPP’s decision not to prosecute opens the door for the legitimate mayor, Gordon April, as opposed to the wannabee Ben van Wyk last June, and the speaker, being burdened with the cost of The Speaker v. Van Wyk and others, to have some clerk type up something that resembles a Constitutional Court settlement, and sign it – making sure no case number is recorded, mind, and write off the speaker’s legal debt.
Surely at least Barrow and his cronies would not possibly object!
But… it would be wrong.
I find it incomprehensible that the selfsame locals hollering ad nauseam about wastefulness and irregularity in the municipality can now register orgasmic delight as “some of them” got off and won’t be prosecuted for this outrageous “settlement”. Ye gods and faeries, talk of garden variety vanilla prejudice!
A story, on the DPP decision, loosely reminiscent of an ode to joy, appears today in Oudtshoorn’s leading newspaper – how do we know it’s Oudtshoorn’s leading newspaper? Well, the same way one knows someone attended Paul Roos – he tells you himself. Objectivity is so appreciated.
This extraordinary vendor of fact reports Nic Barrow’s continuous wail: “I did lodge in the Constitutional Court, I did, I did lodge in the Constitutional Court, I did!”
Not what the CC’s registrar says, Nic!