click here to go HOME if you have one
presumption of innocence drug propaganda Prophet's reply petitions home
The state won because the judge “lied”.
The “unlawful” search of Prophet’s home did not uncover anything illegal.
The applicant’s case. The applicant (the state) in this matter seeks a forfeiture order against the respondent (Simon Prophet) owner of a property, which the applicant contends has been used in several drug-related offences. The applicants allege that the respondent “was using the property in an attempt to manufacture a Schedule 2 drug under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, as well as for the possession of and dealing in prohibited substances.” The applicant argues that the property was “instrumental in the commission of the following offences.”
Contravention of section 3 of the Drugs Act: “Manufacture and supply of scheduled substances. No person shall manufacture any scheduled substance or supply it to any other person, knowing or suspecting that any such scheduled substance is to be used in or for the unlawful manufacture of any drug.” In that respondent manufactured 1-phenyl-2-propanone, a scheduled substance, (defined in schedule 1 of the Drugs Act as one of the “substances useful for the manufacture of drugs”) with the intention to use it in the manufacture of a drug, namely methamphetamine.
Contravention
of section 4(b) of Act 140 of 1992, read with
section 1(1)(xxvii), in that respondent was found in possession of phenylacetic
acid, (defined in schedule 1 of the Drugs
Act as one of the “substances
useful
for the manufacture of drugs”),
1-phenyl-2-propanone and methylamine. Section 4(b) prohibits the possession of
any “undesirable dependence producing substance.” Section 1(1)(xxvii)
defines this as “any substance from which a substance can be manufactured
included in Part III of schedule 2 of the Drugs
and Drug
Trafficking Act.”
Contravention of section 5(b), read with sections 1(1)(xiii) and 1(1)(xxvii) of the said Act, in that respondent dealt in an undesirable dependence producing substance. “Deal in” is defined in section 1(1)(iii) as including “performing any act with the shipment, importation, manufacture, supply of the drug.” Section 1(1)(xiii) defines “drug” as “any dependence producing substance or any undesirable dependence producing substance.” As methamphetamine is listed in Part III of schedule 2, by virtue of section 1(1)(xxvii) phenylacetic acid and 1-phenyl-2-propanone are within the definition of “undesirable dependence producing substance.” Accordingly both the importation of phenylacetic acid and the manufacture of 1-phenyl-2-propanone puts respondent firmly within the definition of having dealt in an undesirable dependence producing drug.
The
drug police have admitted that no drugs or traces of drugs were found in
Prophet’s home but in violation of Prophet’s non-derogable
“supreme”
civil right to be presumed innocent during the proceedings of Prophet’s
criminal trial, the judge uses the word “drug”
16 times in a determined effort to make Prophet look as guilty as hell but,
unwittingly for Erasmus, after beating around the bush with silly definitions,
his graphic presentation backfires when he ends up with a grammatical
contradiction that proves Prophet’s innocence.
Erasmus contradicts himself when referring to phenylacetic acid and 1-phenyl-2-propanone. He includes four statements that refer to these chemicals as substances that are useful in the manufacture of drugs (see green highlight). These statements are contradicted by the last sentence in paragraph 12 in which he refers to the same chemicals as being drugs (see pink highlight). Either the chemicals are useful in making drugs or they are drugs. They can’t be both.
To make this easy for an idiot to understand lets take the example of bread. Everyone knows that yeast, flour and water are substances that can be used to make bread. Water is useful to make bread but water is not the same thing as bread.
In the scientific world and within the realm of common sense phenylacetic acid and 1-phenyl-2-propanone are not drugs. Phenylacetic acid is exactly what its name implies. It is an acid. It belongs to the collective chemical grouping known as acids. If it was a drug or a restricted or dangerous chemical it could not have been sold over the counter without any identification on at least two occasions that Prophet is aware of. 1-phenyl-2-propanone is also not a drug. These are industrial chemicals with no narcotic properties whatsoever. Erasmus is talking nonsense when he refers to these chemicals as drugs.
Civil trials are not like criminal trials. The state submits affidavits which are accepted as facts and the judge forms an opinion.
Nothing in Prophet’s civil trial was established as a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. No evidence was presented in the civil courts. Erasmus used only affidavits to deprive Prophet of his property and none of the things that are said to have been found in Prophet's home are illegal.
Prophet lost his home through a “suspicion”. The suspicion was arrived at from speculation being presented by the state. The judge used unqualified statements to arrive at his own speculation.
To make matters worse, Erasmus:
1) did not understand the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act ,
2) used evidence that was “unlawfully” obtained and
3) by, adding innovative lies of his own, Erasmus “framed” Prophet.
And so without further ado Prophet lost his home.
The two criminal trials which both stemmed from the identical allegation, criminal case number 16/79/2001 and criminal case number 16/236/03, were very different.
Prophet put in a plea "not guilty" in both criminal trials and he was acquitted in both trials.
According to Section 25(3) (m) of the Bill of Rights, Act 108 of 1996, the right not to be tried for an offence for which a person has been acquitted is a supreme non-derogable law and this right is also an international law which means that the National Prosecuting Authority violated both Section 25(3) (m) of the Bill of Rights and also international law. Prophet's acquittal in both criminal trials is devastating for the National Prosecuting Authority because the second criminal trial has emphatically proven Prophet's innocence and has exposed the injustice of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act and the serious unlawful actions of the National Prosecuting Authority.
In the criminal trials illuminating facts became apparent in the further particulars and the further further particulars and the investigating officer testified over four days and it was established that the drug police did not find any illegal drugs in Prophet’s home. No illegal thing of any kind was forthcoming. The drug police admitted that not even traces of drugs were found by the police drug forensic scientists.
In the second criminal trial the magistrate questioned the policeman about the chemicals that were listed on the charge sheet. These are the chemicals which the state claims were found in Prophet’s home. The policeman was asked about the nature of every chemical and on cross examination it turned out that none of the chemicals are illegal.
When the drug policeman admitted that it is legal to use and have such chemicals, he was not being stupid. He was simply telling the truth and the magistrate had no option but to find Prophet "not guilty" of any criminal charges. The Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act does not prohibit experimenting with any of these chemicals.
The captions from the following cartoons are taken directly from the criminal court transcripts of the second criminal trial case number 16/236/03. The transcripts are available from Veritas in Cape Town.
The Asset and Forfeiture Unit makes fun of Prophet’s right to presumption of innocence.
The Asset and Forfeiture Unit makes fun of Prophet’s right to dignity.
The civil courts have made fun of Prophet’s acquittal.
Is what we read in the Bill of Rights all just a joke?
The right not to be treated in a cruel way is also a non-derogable supreme law.
The right to dignity is also a non-derogable supreme law.
In R v Oakes 1986 26 DLR (4th) 481 a Canadian judge had this to say:
“The presumption of
innocence protects the fundamental liberty and human dignity of any and every
person accused by the state of criminal conduct. An individual charged with a
criminal offence faces grave social and personal consequences, including
potential loss of physical liberty, subjection to social and ostracism from the
community, as well as other psychological and economic harms. In the light of
the gravity of these consequences, the presumption of innocence is crucial. It
ensures that until the State proves an accused’s guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt, he or she is innocent. This is essential in a society
committed to fairness and social justice. The presumption of innocence confirms
our faith in humankind; it reflects our believe that individuals are decent and
law abiding members of the community until proven otherwise”.
Prophet has the civil right to have his dignity “respected and protected” and this is a non-derogable supreme law. If someone is going to say that he is a drug dealer then they must prove that in a criminal court of law and that must be determined as a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Anything less than that is a violation of his right to dignity.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act cannot circumvent non-derogable supreme laws any more than it can say or surmise in a public debate that Judge Desai is a rapist. Any such inference must be proven as a fact beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law. Anything short of that is a violation of the judge’s right to the presumption of his innocence. The right to presumption of innocence is non-derogable. There is no footnote in section 35(3) (h) that permits the Prevention of Organized Crime Act to violate this law.
On the 28th June 2001 Judge Desai signed the preservation order against Prophet’s home in violation of section 35(3) (h) which is a non-derogable “supreme” law.
Judge Desai was accused of rape and Prophet was accused of drug dealing.
Desai has admitted to having had sex with the married woman who accused him of rape. We cannot comment on the rumor that the judge sodomized his accuser but by virtue of the judge's own admission everyone now knows that he violated one of the laws of the Ten Commandments which in some places is punishable by stoning to death.
We have been told that Prophet was in possession of industrial chemicals like acetone and hydrochloric acid. We know that these chemicals are not illegal in any country in the world and that being in possession of or experimenting with such chemicals does not constitute a crime.
The criminal charges against Desai and Prophet were serious but both of these people, in their criminal trials, were found to be “not guilty”. There are no grounds in South Africa to punish people who have been found not guilty.
Being cruel to people who have been accused of committing a crime is a violation of a “non-derogable” supreme law.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is disposing of the concept of a proper criminal trial as defined by any civilized society because it has created a platform whereby the state no longer needs to arrest or charge suspected criminals and the legal requirement for the state to respect the civil rights of any criminal suspect has become a thing of the past.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act circumvents the criminal justice system and uses civil law to make any person suffer who it deems to be a criminal. This is exactly what has happened to Prophet and no part of section 35 tolerates any such action.
It is deplorable that the civil courts including the Constitutional Court did not absolutely acknowledge his innocence after he was acquitted in both of his criminal trials.
The whole of section 35 applies in any environment. It applies within all courts (including civil courts), any work environment and in any social club or anywhere that falls under the protection of the Republic of South Africa Constitution.
In the absence of a crime the Prevention of Organized Crime Act gives to itself the authority to treat an “accused” person in a cruel way. The general public who observe such action can only draw one conclusion and that is that the person who is being accused is guilty. This can be interpreted in no other way than to say that that is a derogation of that person’s right to dignity. The right to dignity is a supreme non-derogable law.
To say that a person can be determined to be guilty of a crime on suspicion and then for a civil court to deliver such an act of cruelty as to deprive the person of his home without compensation is to lead into the mind of the public that the person is not innocent and this can therefore only be construed as a violation of the person’s right to the presumption of his innocence.
The presumption of innocence is a supreme non-derogable law. There is nothing in the Constitution that tolerates any derogation of this law. By virtue of the table of non-derogable supreme laws within the Constitution, the Prevention of Organized Crime Act is not permitted to derogate this law.
Section 35(3) (h) of the Bill of rights is a supreme
non-derogable
law and the state cannot violate it under any circumstances. Even in a state of
emergency this law may not be derogated. This law specifically disallows the
state to say “we can’t prove his guilt
in a criminal court so we’ll use the Prevention of Organized Crime
Act in a civil court so that we can
punish him because as far as we are concerned he is guilty”
There is no footnote under section 35 that gives the Prevention of Organized Crime Act any authority to violate non-derogable supreme laws. The Prevention of Organized Crime Act has no authority to derogate Prophet’s right to a fair trial?
There is no footnote anywhere in the Constitution that gives the Prevention of Organized Crime Act the authority to violate any non-derogable supreme law.
The right to not be treated in a cruel way is a non-derogable supreme law. The Prevention of Organized Crime Act allows itself to be cruel to a person “suspected” of having committed a crime in the absence of a criminal conviction or even a criminal charge and by giving itself the permission to do this it is sidestepping all the considerations in section 35.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is so arrogant that it even allows the state to attack and be cruel to a person even in the absence of a crime as is what has happened to Prophet. No proof of any crime stands before the court. The right to not be treated in a cruel way is a supreme non-derogable law.
The deprivation of a person's home and the consequential ramifications to the affected family is cruelty in the extreme. Even if Prophet had been guilty then Hofmeyr should never have been given the green light to attack Prophet’s children.
The fact that Prophet had been found “not guilty” in his criminal trials and that when he was evicted from his home his family were also thrown into the street is an eternal disgrace to every judge who sided with Hofmeyr.
There is no footnote under section 35 or anywhere in the Bill of Rights that allows the Prevention of Organized Crime Act to do any such thing. The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is violating the rights of accused people and it is also violating the rights of the families of accused people.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act appeared two years after the Constitution became the law of laws. If it had shown its face to those who compiled section 35 of the supreme law then the Prevention of Organized Crime Act would never have seen the light of day.
In 2005 approximately 18 000 people were murdered in South Africa. Can Parliament make a new law called THE PREVENTION OF MURDERERS ACT and in that law say that this new law is a civil law that gives to itself the power to disregard criminal law procedures so that the state in a civil action can, if it can determine that there is a suspicion held against an innocent person, call upon a civil court to make a court order instructing the state to hang that person by the neck until dead?
Parliament did not scrutinize the Prevention of Organized Crime Act and the civil trials against Prophet are living testimony to that and now the Prevention of Organized Crime Act must go back to the drawing board.
The only fair way that is open for the state to say that Prophet is not innocent is to prove that as a fact beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law. Anything else is a derogation of Prophet’s right to the presumption of his innocence.
Anyone who takes the trouble to read the criminal court record of the second criminal trial can see that the magistrate definitely determined to establish the legality of the chemicals that have been claimed to have been found in Prophet’s home. Prophet was not acquitted on a “technicality”. The policeman admitted that the list of chemicals on the charge sheet did not warrant even an arrest.
It would have taken a plea of guilty from Prophet for a criminal court to have found him guilty. The criminal allegations against Prophet are all speculative assumptions. Not a molecule of any drug was found in Prophet’s possession. Prophet is not a drug dealer.
The Supreme Court of Appeal never bothered to
read the criminal court record and the
It is a violation against Prophet’s dignity to say that he was acquitted on a “technicality” and then use this word in a way to imply that he is guilty? Prophet is not guilty because he was found not guilty in both of his criminal trials and this is a condition that is absolute and final. There is nothing else to talk about.
Posted
to the web on: 13 March 2007
THE Simon Prophet series of court cases illustrates how the operation
of SA’s pernicious asset forfeiture legislation violates the most
fundamental constitutional safeguards intended to protect South Africans and
their property from violent state action and seizure. Prophet had his house
seized as being “an instrumentality of an offence”, but he was found not
guilty of the charge that was brought against him. The state nevertheless took
his house and the courts did not compel the state to return his property to
him. In other countries with similar legislation, property forfeiture orders
cannot be granted until after a criminal conviction. In SA, being found not
guilty of criminality does not protect the individual, as it should, from
asset forfeiture.
First, the facts of the case. We cannot with certainty say what the
facts of the case are. The asset forfeiture procedure avoids a trial, which
means that the facts are not tested in court. All we know is what the police
allege and that these allegations are treated as facts. In January 2001, the
police suspected that the unemployed Prophet was manufacturing drugs at his
home, which if true would have contravened several laws. They raided his home
and found parts of it set up as a laboratory. They also found some
manufactured chemicals, which were poured down the drain when the police
captain, assigned to keep watch, left to let the press in. Prophet was
subsequently acquitted of all criminal charges, but his home was nevertheless
declared forfeit to the state.
An application for a preservation order (for the state to hold the
asset) starts off with a secret hearing based exclusively on police
affidavits. Prophet need not be informed of the hearing and has no right to
appear before the court. The police may even, if they so choose, lie in the
affidavits. If found out, the police can file further affidavits. The double
jeopardy (being punished twice for the same offence) rule is not applied.
Since the court has only the police affidavits to go by, it is a foregone
conclusion that the preservation order will be granted, allowing the state to
hold the asset until it has obtained a forfeiture order. In the Prophet case,
it was granted in June 2001.
The next step is the forfeiture order. Now Prophet may file an
answering affidavit. To do so he must give up the right of silence. Whatever
he says (or does not say) can be used against him. If he does not reply he
loses his home. He replied, and made an unsuccessful application to stay the
forfeiture case pending the outcome of the criminal case. He applied for leave
to appeal; this was denied.
He appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which granted the right to appeal. In the meanwhile, the criminal case was heard and he was acquitted of all criminal charges. He lost the case before the Supreme Court. It decided that if he did not want to lose his house he should have filed reasons why he should not lose his house. It is difficult to see when he should have done so, since his application before the high court was to stay the proceedings pending the criminal case. The SCA is a court of appeal, not a trial court, so filing reasons relating to forfeiture of his house would be inappropriate to do so at the appeal stage. So now the matter was bogged down by mere procedures, caused by the fact that the forfeiture legislation is designed to avoid the proper, centuries-old, trial procedures. The court granted Prophet leave to appeal in respect of the question of whether the forfeiture of his property was constitutional or not. Prophet took the matter to the Constitutional Court.
To date, the Constitutional Court has agreed with the state on all
asset forfeiture cases, overturning high court decisions declaring the asset
forfeiture legislation to be unconstitutional. The court decided that Prophet
could not argue that the asset forfeiture legislation was unconstitutional
since he did not do so at the previous hearings. So if we understand the
courts correctly, when filing the initial replying affidavit, the accused must
at the same time also file reasons why he should not lose his property and why
the action is unconstitutional — that is, before the courts have decided
anything. His application to adduce further evidence about the dismissal of
the criminal charge was also dismissed. He could not raise this earlier, since
it had not happened when the high court first heard the case.
Prophet had protested that he was not involved in organised crime. The
court referred to his own answering affidavit in which he agreed that the
country faced an organised crime problem. This illustrates why the right of
silence is important. He clearly can have no knowledge of the state of
organised crime in the country. His statement about organised crime was both
hearsay and irrelevant. The court has now indicated that it is not overly
concerned about these rules. Had the centuries-old due process of law been
followed, all of these procedural issues would have been dealt with in the
correct sequence.
The Prophet case illustrates how every known constitutional safeguard
is violated in these asset forfeiture cases, including the presumption of
innocence, the right of silence, the due process of law, the right to trial,
the double jeopardy rule, punishment fitting the crime, and the rules of
evidence. That Prophet could not rely on these safeguards means that no one
can, which could not have been the intention of the legislature in approving
the asset forfeiture legislation to assist the state in confiscating “the
proceeds of organized crime”.
The
author of the above shown in green is Robert W Vivian, Professor of Finance and Insurance,
University of the
Why is this happening?
Within less than 10 years of the existence the Prevention of Organized Crime Act the Asset and Forfeiture Unit has seized more than two billion rand (2 000 000 000!!!) in property and forfeited R500 000 000 following litigation.. (figures taken from page 15, volume 3 / September 2006 – Justice Today.)
How much money is the Asset and Forfeiture Unit going to seize in the next hundred years?
Can anyone be surprised that the civil courts are ignoring Prophet’s civil rights? There’s just too much money at stake here but hats off to the Honourable Justice Thring.
The civil courts allowed the state to put Prophet into a series and sequence of events whereby his options to express himself freely were jeopardized.
It is true to say that conventional science will consider radionics as “ridiculous” and Prophet does recognize that his aspirations do not fall into mainstream thinking but that does not negate Prophet’s constitutional right to such scientific research if he so chooses to follow any such pursuits. As long as he has not violated any law in those pursuits there is nothing the state can do to prevent him from engaging in such research but the Prevention of Organized Crime Act has made him a homeless person.
Simon Prophet has not violated the Prevention of Organized Crime Act but the Prevention of Organized Crime Act has violated Prophet.
Prophet still confirms that he has a right to privacy and that the state and the civil courts have never earned any right to expect, much less demand, any answer from Prophet.
It is a fact that has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that the drug police have violated Prophet’s supreme right to privacy. The civil courts are all guilty of the same violations of Prophet’s privacy because all of those courts have allowed the state advocates to ride on the back of the unlawful actions of the drug police by speculating about all the legal things that are said to have been discovered by the drug police.
The civil courts and the state have all been violating Prophet’s right to privacy. By supreme right Prophet is entitled to his privacy and is under no obligation to answer to any enquiry into his scientific exploits.
Prophet has not studied all the obscure laws that exist and he is unsure as to where the law determines the dividing line between witch craft and science and then for his own safety he must limit any information that he tenders but this does not mean that he is a drug dealer.
He is entitled to protect himself from the state who, because of what he might say, might determine to charge him under the witchcraft laws or some other law that he has never heard of.
Prophet is aware of two people who have been
persecuted by law for their interest and activities associated with radionics.
Dr Ruth Brown, an American Chiropractor, was unjustly convicted in
When Prophet made the “ridiculous” remark he was tongue tied and confused because of the pending criminal trial and since then Prophet has never been given the opportunity to make further disclosures but since it has become known that the actions of the state have been “unlawful” then why should he have to say anything at all? The state has not yet been made to answer for its unlawful actions.
How can Prophet bring pressure onto the state for the state to be held accountable for violating common law, the criminal justice system and also the supreme law of the country?
Now the civil courts are putting blame on Prophet for not disclosing relevant information after he was acquitted but what the civil courts are covering up is that every time that Prophet tried to present new disclosures then those disclosures have consistently been rejected by the same courts.
New disclosures in his replying affidavit to the Supreme Court of Appeal were ignored.
Three affidavits that he tried to submit to the
Prophet has never failed to submit relevant information.
The failings do not rest with Prophet. The failings come from the state and the civil courts because these are the entities that brought about the violation of his right to silence in the first instance. His right to silence is a non-derogable supreme law. Had proper procedures been followed from the outset then this would never have been an issue.
The Honourable Justice Thring could clearly see the violations on hand and he was hesitant about “putting the cart before the horse” and called for the Asset and Forfeiture Unit to place its actions in a proper sequence.
The Honourable Justice Thring was hot on the tail of the state. His words were “first find him guilty then the forfeiture”. What prompted him to ask “what will happen if he is acquitted?”
So what has happened since Prophet has been acquitted?
The civil courts have dedicated themselves to issues that are trivial and are turning a blind eye to the real issues that are at hand.
An innocent man has been deprived of his property
without compensation and in the absence of a crime Prophet is being treated in a
cruel way. The cruelty is on going because the media are pronouncing Prophet to
be a
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act also deprived Prophet of his income. He had obtained commercial business rights on the property and two businesses were in process of development.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act shattered Prophet's dreams.
Why have so many judges ignored so many civil right violations? Would the judges be angry if members of the public became “suspicious” and proclaimed that on a balance of probabilities the judges are turning a blind eye because their pockets are being lined with some of the R 2 000 000 000 that the Asset and Forfeiture Unit has seized?
Only an idiot would try to argue that the Prevention of Organized Crime Act is consistent with the Bill of Rights.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is an established legal entity but it is an unlawful legal act because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the republic and any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid and any public official, any judge, or even any group of judges, any member of parliament or any person in any capacity whatsoever does not have the authority to disregard the Constitution without pursuing the proper means to do that and the only way that the Prevention of Organized Crime Act can survive proper scrutiny of civil rights is to have the Bill of Rights rewritten.
Two battered bodies lay dead in the morgue with a murder weapon and a trail of blood that found its way to OJ's clothing. Two people had been murdered and Simpson's civil trial centered on who was responsible for the crime.
The media has falsely and consistently drawn correlations between the Simpson civil trial and Prophet’s civil trial but the facts of these two cases are entirely different. The media presents a juxtaposition of the two cases and through a mental association that Simpson is guilty the media leave the reader with a picture that Prophet is guilty but such a proposal is far removed from the truth!
The mere fact that Prophet’s civil trial was concluded before the criminal trial had ended dispels every claim coming from the state that the house was an “instrumentality”. What would have happened to the Simpson trial if the American government tried to sell the “evidence” before the conclusion of Simpson's criminal trial? So where is the correlation? There is none and Prophet was not acquitted “on a technicality” as the media would have all believe. Prophet was acquitted because no crime has been shown to have happened.
Prophet's civil trial wandered around guesswork that a crime could have been committed. No crime stands before the court. No drugs or witnesses are there to testify. The entire case is speculation.
It's as if OJ Simpson could be held accountable for having been responsible for the death of two people because he had been found in possession of deadly murder weapons but the people who he was accused of having murdered were still alive.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act became legal without proper consideration of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. It is impossible for these two acts to be compatible and it is a form of treason to tolerate such derogation of civil rights to the extent that is here being revealed.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is inconsistent with the Constitution because it is not founded on human dignity and it does not achieve equality and it does not advance human rights and it does not advance freedoms; section 1(a).
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is inconsistent with the Constitution because it violates the right to a common South African citizenship; section 3(1).
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is inconsistent with the Constitution because it violates the right to equal entitlement of the rights; section 3(2) (a).
Through the implementation of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act against Prophet it can be shown that 66 of his civil rights have been violated. Here are 28 of the violations:
1) his right to dignity; section 10 is a supreme non-derogable right, (The presence of the drug police in Prophet’s home was unlawful. The material found there was confidential and that material was displayed in the civil trial without first establishing the legality of that display. This issue was raised in papers before Erasmus but he ignored his obligation to secure Prophet’s right to privacy. The display of that material was unlawfully presented by the state in a biased fashion to make Prophet appear to be guilty of a crime and it was presented when Prophet was tongue-tied because of the pending criminal trial. Prophet was not in a position to properly defend himself or to reply to the allegations and as a consequence of a “one sided opinion” that became a public display via unlawful media presentations, Prophet was perceived by the general public to be a gangster involved with dealing in Tik and his dignity was permanently destroyed.)
2) his right not to be tortured; section 12(1) (d) is a supreme non-derogable right (forcing a person to break his silence by threatening that person with the loss of his home is worse than being threatened with the loss of his fingernails),
3) his right not to be treated in a cruel way; section 12(1) (e) is a supreme non-derogable right, (taking away a person's home because of legal industrial chemicals worth R2 000 is an act of cruelty because there must be a relationship between crime and punishment but when a person loses his home in the absence of a crime then that would have to be seen as an act of unjust and extreme cruelty)
4) his right not to be punished in a cruel way; section 12(1) (e) is a supreme non-derogable right,
5) his right to not be arbitrarily deprived of property; section 25(1), (depriving a person of his home because there exists a suspicion of illegal activities can only be interpreted as arbitrary deprivation of property)
6) his right to be compensated for property that is expropriated; section 25(2) (b),
7) his right to fair compensation for property that is expropriated; section 25(3),
8) his right to have access to adequate housing; section 26(1),
9) his right not to be evicted through legislation that is arbitrary; section 26(3),
10) his right to administrative action that is lawful; section 33(1),
11) his right to administrative action that is reasonable; section 33(1),
12) his right to administrative action that is procedurally fair; section 33(1),
13) his right to remain silent; section 35(1) (a) is a supreme non-derogable right,
14) his right to a fair trial; section 35 is a supreme non-derogable right,
15) his right not to be compelled to make any confession that could be used in evidence against him; section 35(1) (c) is a supreme non-derogable right,
16) his right not to be compelled to make any admission that could be used in evidence against him; section 35(1) (c) is a supreme non-derogable right,
17) his right to be present when being tried when that right was limited because to be present would render his criminal trial unfair; section 35(3) (e) is a supreme non-derogable right,
18) his right to presumption of innocence during the proceedings of his criminal trial; section 35(3)(h) is a supreme non-derogable right,
19) his right to silence during the proceedings of his criminal trial; s. 35(3) (h) is a supreme non-derogable right.
20) his right not to testify during the proceedings of his criminal trial; s. 35(3) (h) is a supreme non-derogable right.
21) his right to adduce evidence when that right was limited because to do so would render his criminal trial unfair; section 35(3) (i) is a supreme non-derogable right,
22) his right to challenge evidence when that right was limited because to do so would render his criminal trial unfair; section 35(3) (i) is a supreme non-derogable right,
23) his right not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence; s. 35(3) (j) is a supreme non-derogable right,
24) his right not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which he has previously been either acquitted or convicted; section 35(3) (m) is a supreme non-derogable right,
25) his right to be given
information in a language that he understands; s.35(3) (k) is a
supreme non-derogable
right (technical submissions from the forensic drug police were submitted
in a language that is foreign to Prophet.),
26) his right to have illegal evidence excluded from trial; section 35(5) is a supreme non-derogable right,
27) his right to not have a right limited by a law that is unreasonable; section 36(1), (the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 attacks the families of accused persons and this is not only unreasonable but gross violation against humanity.)
28) his right to not have a right limited by a law that is not justifiable; section 36(1), (the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 is not justifiable because with regard to methamphetamine the police drug reports submitted during the Prophet civil trials can prove that the forfeiture of his home has not prevented methamphetamine drug crime in South Africa and that the forfeiture has had the opposite effect as envisaged by the state and from there having been no methamphetamine drug crime in South Africa before his home was attacked this particular drug crime now exceeds all other drug crimes. A report from SACENDU noted a rapid increase in treatment for methamphetamine (Tik). "Accounting for less than 1% of all substance related treatment demand, until the end of 2002, treatment for methamphetamine as a proportion of total treatment in Cape Town rose to 15% in 2004, 30% in 2005, before stabilizing at 40% in 2006 and 41% in the first six months of 2007. “ Willie Hofmeyr cannot deny these statistics. He would be lying through his teeth to say that he has prevented methamphetamine drug crime by forfeiting Prophet's home. The progress of the civil trials against Prophet walk hand in hand with a corresponding escalation of methamphetamine drug abuse.).
Section 37(5) (c) states that even under the most extreme circumstances such as when parliament has declared a state of emergency that no legislation or action may permit or authorize any derogation from a section mentioned in column 1 of the Table of Non-derogable Rights. Prophet can show that the POC Act is inconsistent with 66 civil rights within the Bill of Rights and he can also show 18 sub sections of those civil rights appear in column 1 of the table of non-derogable rights.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 Act was not made in pursuance of the Bill of Rights and is in conflict with the Constitution and therefore through an ordinary man’s perception it is of course unconstitutional and of no effect because the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 contravenes, diminishes and perverts the Constitution.
What happened to Prophet’s non-derogable civil right to have his dignity respected and upheld?
What happened to his right to silence or 16 of his other non-derogable rights?
Non-derogable laws are absolute laws and are not bound by section 36.
Methamphetamine has been available for more than 100 years and had been well established in America even before 1970 but in South Africa this drug in the underworld of the Cape Flats was unheard of.
The
gangs on the
To try to argue that methamphetamine is such terrible drug that it was going to become a problem regardless does not negate Prophet's argument that the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 has not prevented this crime. However you want to look at the statistics or the nature of the drug, it becomes obvious to any rational person that the Prevention of Organized Crime Act has failed.
Section 36(2) of the Bill of Rights says that "no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights."
The state is quick to jump to Section 36(1) to limit civil rights but have any of the civil court judges or the state violators stopped to read this supreme law? Read the law yourself and you will discover that any limitation must comply with being reasonable and justifiable. The deprivation of Prophet's home is not justifiable because the Prevention of Organized Crime Act has not prevented methamphetamine drug crime and who is going to argue in a public place that it was reasonable to throw his family into the street? What crime did his children commit?
It has been the forfeiture itself of Prophet’s home that has promoted this drug.
The Asset and Forfeiture Unit would have all believe that Prophet created the new drug trend but the state, the media and the civil courts are in a deep trance and are unable to comprehend or recognize their own role in the promotion of methamphetamine.
If Prophet had been working secretly in his garage to promote methamphetamine crimes then he could never have produced the statistics that the CIAC police figures are revealing since his home was forfeited.
It is the Asset and Forfeiture Unit that has created the stampede for methamphetamine. The Asset and Forfeiture Unit has not sent out a clear message for gangsters to not manufacture this drug.
Hofmeyr and the Asset and Forfeiture Unit have inadvertently been their own worst enemy and now methamphetamine labs in residential areas are like mushrooms in a wet forest.
The
proof is in the pudding.
The Supreme Court of Appeal “considered it critical that a balance be struck between the public interest in effective crime fighting and the interests of private property owners affected by forfeiture laws.” Obviously Judge Mpati never looked at the above graph. In terms of the “public interest” Judge Mpati has no facts to indicate that the Prevention of Organized Crime Act has “effectively” fought the crime of methamphetamine drugs.
Judge Mpati is unconscious of how things work in the underworld and has been seduced by the emotionally distorted and unsubstantiated claims of the state.
The violations of Prophet’s property rights have left him destitute and impoverished.
Since the seizure of his home, Prophet has received more than a dozen requests from organized crime syndicates to manufacture illegal drugs.
After having been deprived of his dignity and a safe place to sleep at night he must now seriously consider his options and the offers coming from organized crime groups are seductive.
It has taken Prophet all of his life to secure his humble home and that being lost to him and now since his eyes have been opened to the possibilities that exist within organized crime and if what he is being told is true then if he now turns to crime he can recover from the theft of his home quite quickly.
The failure of the civil courts to respect his innocence or his dignity or his right to property has created a man with nothing to loose and everything to gain.
Anger and intelligence are dangerous combinations and Judge Mpati doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Judges do lie?
When Prophet complained to one advocate that Erasmus had lied in his judgement, the advocate calmly told Prophet that judges lie all the time.
Prophet was shocked but being shocked does not mean that he is going to allow Erasmus to spread lies. It stands as a fact before the world that he did lie. Why should Prophet cover up for Erasmus so that Erasmus can side with the Asset and Forfeiture Unit and collude to steal Prophet's home?
As far as Prophet is concerned the Asset and Forfeiture Unit is an organized gang. If you read the definitions in the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 then, yes, they do qualify as an organized gang. You see, everything is open to interpretation. It all depends on how you look at life.
The state is “suspicious” that Prophet violated one section of schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act but by using the definitions of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act and by applying logic Prophet can show that the state has “beyond all reasonable doubt” violated seven sections of Schedule 1 of the same Act.
Is the state compelled to respect the law?
subsection 5. public violence; [the state is responsible for the death of one of Prophet's pets]
subsection 7. assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm; [Prophet was assaulted by a member of the state and so was Nicola Daniels during the “unlawful” search.]
subsection 15.
breaking or entering any premises whether under the common law or a statutory
provision, with intent to commit an offence; [Four obvious offences the state did commit in this instance are
the violations of sections 14(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Bill of Rights which
says and I quote: “Everyone has the
right to privacy, which includes the right not to have their person or home
searched; their property searched; their possessions seized; or the privacy of
their communications infringed.”
Prior to the "unlawful" search of Prophet's home he had never
so much as been charged with dealing or even possession of drugs much less been
convicted and up until the present time which is at the time of this writing now
seven years since he was "unlawfully" arrested, and outside of
state allegations, the state is unable to show a single complaint from any
civilian that has implicated Prophet in any drug related incident. The state had no justifiable
reason to launch an intensive surveillance on him that involved more than 6 drug
policemen. The state violated his privacy without right or reason. It has been
proven in a criminal court of law “beyond all reasonable doubt” that
the search of his home and the seizure of his possessions were both unlawful.]
subsection 16. malicious damage to property; [There is video footage of a member of the state kicking Prophet's trellis-gate several times. It was irreparably damaged.]
subsection 17. theft, whether under the common law or a statutory provision; [Prophet maintains that his home has been stolen from him and although this is open to interpretation it is now known that during the unlawful search and apart from the "unlawful" seizure of his laboratory the drug police stole a cell phone charger, the garbage disposal unit from the kitchen, a Dictaphone with dozens of tapes and Prophet's personal diaries that extend over a five year period. When Prophet was evicted from his home the state drove away with his Mercedes Benz 500 SL and his Volkswagen Golf and also took all his furniture, TVs and computers. Prophet was unlawfully locked up on a false charge of being in possession of illegal firearms and ammunition and literally everything in his house was either removed by the state or what was not wanted was thrown into the street. The money that Prophet paid into his home loan account has disappeared. In 2008 Prophet opened a criminal charge of fraud and theft against First National Bank and the Asset and Forfeiture Unit are directly related to these criminal allegations.]
subsection 28. any offence contemplated in section 1 (1) and 1A (1) of the Intimidation Act, 1982 (Act No. 72 of 1982); [within arms reach a drug policeman pointed a gun to Prophet's head and threatened to murder him..]
subsection 30. perjury; [this has been established as a fact beyond reasonable doubt in the pretrial hearings of both of the criminal trials.]
subsection 34. any conspiracy, incitement or attempt to commit any offence referred to in this schedule. [If we took this section seriously then we would surely come up with more than 7 violations.]
The Asset and Forfeiture Unit and Willie Hofmeyr are directly linked to all the above law violations.
Prophet is being sued by the government that makes one allegation that in its entirety is based on speculation that he violated one section of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act. The civil courts ruled in favor of the government even after it had been shown that he was innocent but they ignore substantial evidence that the government violated seven sections of the same Prevention of Organized Crime Act under which Prophet has been charged.
Perjury by the state has already been verified as a “fact beyond all reasonable doubt” in two criminal courts of law. Other court findings and testimony with witnesses and video footage is available to support all the allegations against the state. There’s no need for silly “balances of probabilities”.
How can civil court judges rely on affidavits coming from the state which have been compiled by people who have been proven to be dishonest specifically within the identical trials?
How can four civil courts of law ignore the organized criminal action of the state when the proven violations of the state outweigh Prophet’s suspected violation and Prophet doesn’t exist as any organization or even a part of any organization much less a criminal organization?
One thing that is not open to interpretation is that Prophet, as an individual, cannot be construed as an organized gang. In the absence of a gang and in the absence of a crime, the state has interpreted Prophet to be a gangster and the civil courts have played along with the state.
Everyone is equal before the law…
Everyone is supposed to be equal before the law but how can such be applicable inside a system where clearly everyone is not equal in terms of how they think? The state often wrongfully assumes its own benevolence and usually so do all state employees.
Millions were subjected to suffering through the legal perversion of apartheid.
In the moment the law is always right but history consistently shows us that law is often misguided and Prophet’s trials are in the process of making history because they are going to collapse the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 and they are exposing major failings of our Constitution.
The drug laws are a dismal failure and Helen Zille's proposals to get tough on drug crimes is a waste of time and money. The only way to lower the drug crime statistics is to decriminalize the industry. Without the death sentence it is practically impossible to legally limit economic opportunities where poverty is prevalent. America is an affluent country but even there we have the facts to conclusively prove that drug laws have had little impact on the illegal drug industry. More than three decades of cruel and barbaric drug laws throughout the world have shown only an increase in drug abuse and it can convincingly be argued that the drug laws have caused greater misery than the drugs themselves.
Soros Compared The War On Drugs To The Vietnam
War, Calling A Drug-Free
“I believe that a drug-free
We don’t have figures in
Judges are not taught to think independently. Judges are sometimes fickle and are paid to support the system. People who do not support the system and find themselves before the law are not equal because the balance is always on the side of the state. That is why after apartheid that we created a constitution and a Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights introduces some balance between power and person. It allows any judge to protect himself or herself and retain his or her employment by putting blame on the Constitution. The Bill of Rights limits government to a basic frame work of human rights considerations.
So what happened to Prophet? The Bill of Rights
can only be effective if it is recognized by all the courts including civil
courts and in Prophet’s case it is evident that four civil courts including
the
Simon Prophet was found not guilty of dealing in drugs; yet four civil courts colluded to deprive Prophet and his family of their home and newspaper headlines have branded Prophet to be a Cape Town drug lord.
Newspaper headlines on articles about Prophet.
What would happen to
newspapers that referred to Judge Desai as a “serial
rapist” or to Jacob Zuma as a “small
dick” or to his home as a “rape
house”?
The right to dignity is a non-derogable law and the media is bound by section 10 of the Constitution and the right to dignity applies to ordinary citizens as much as it does to politicians and judges.
When Prophet was arrested
the media were in full force at his home but when the criminal court ruled that
he was acquitted of all wrong doing no member of the media was there. A blanket
of silence prevailed but, after the Supreme Court of Appeal judgement and the
Ntswahlana said police had been encouraged by the landmark judgment of the
Constitutional Court‘s ruling in the case of a Cape Town
drug lord Simon
Prophet that his house be seized even when he was acquitted on charges of
dealing and manufacturing drugs on his premises.
www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/
According
to the above internet report, Prophet is a “
Why are people being permitted to refer to
Prophet as a “
Prophet is a not a drug dealer and no one can limit Prophet’s non-derogable rights. According to section 10 of the Bill of Rights dignity is a non-derogable supreme law. Judge Desai did disgrace himself by breaching his wife’s trust but what will happen to journalists who refer to Judge Desai as a “serial rapist”?
Can the Asset & Forfeiture Unit say that Desai, Prophet and Zuma are, “on a balance of probabilities”, guilty of “suspected” commissions of crime and seize their assets? If a woman signs an affidavit under oath that she had been raped then does such an affidavit represent a “reasonable suspicion” that a crime has been committed?
According to four South African civil courts it would appear that the Prevention of Organized Crime Act permits the Asset and Forfeiture Unit and Willie Hofmeyr to say and do whatever they wish but in civilized countries and according to the Republic of South African Constitution it is only when you have proof “beyond all reasonable doubt” that you can call a person a drug dealer or a rapist. Calling a person a drug dealer or a rapist outside of “proof beyond all reasonable doubt” is a violation of that person’s dignity. The right to dignity is a non-derogable supreme law. Not the Asset and Forfeiture Unit, not the Prevention of Organized Crime Act nor any newspaper has authority to derogate this supreme law and affidavits do not constitute “proof beyond all reasonable doubt”.
Affidavits must have been submitted against Desai and Zuma for them to have been arrested as alleged rapists but as we all know, affidavits do not constitute proof beyond doubt and, in South Africa, affidavits are not an invitation to derogate non-derogable laws like presumption of innocence (section 35(3) (h) of the Bill of Rights) or dignity (section 10 of the Bill of Rights) yet the Prevention of Organized Crime Act seems to be immune from these supreme non-derogable laws and in the presence of the Asset and Forfeiture Unit it would appear that state affidavits can be accepted as proof “beyond all reasonable doubt” but affidavits submitted by parties defending themselves from Asset and Forfeiture Unit attack can be rejected as hearsay or simply ignored.
Can the Asset and Forfeiture Unit say that Jacob Zuma’s home is an instrumentality of a suspected commission of an offence and then forfeit the property? The woman who accused him of rape is still insisting under oath that he did rape her in his home. Is there a “suspicion” that Zuma’s home is an instrumentality of a suspected crime?
In terms of section 3(2) (a) of the Bill of Rights, Act 108 of 1996, what is the difference between Jacob Zuma and Simon Prophet? In terms of section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights, Act 108 of 1996, what is the difference between Jacob Zuma and Simon Prophet?
On what basis can the media refer to Prophet’s home as a “drug factory”?
Prophet has never been found guilty of any conspiracy, incitement or attempt to commit any offence referred to in section 13 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. (See section 34 of schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, 1998)
Prophet is not part nor has he ever been part of any organized crime.
Prophet is not nor has he ever been involved in money laundering.
Prophet does now accept and he has always accepted his obligation to report certain information.
Prophet is not nor has he ever been involved in criminal gang activities.
Prophet is not nor has he been involved in activities relating to racketeering activities.
Prophet is not nor has he ever been involved in money laundering.
Prophet is not nor has he ever been involved with certain activities associated with gangs.
Prophet does not have nor has he ever had criminal assets that have been used to commit an offence
Prophet does not have nor has he ever had any proceeds of unlawful activity.
Prophet does not nor has he ever had assets that are the proceeds of unlawful activity.
Prophet is alien to every part of the preamble paragraph of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act.
In the introductory paragraph of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act there is not a single inclusion that relates to Prophet in any way yet the Prevention of Organized Crime Act was used to arbitrary deprive him and his family of their home.
Prophet has never been convicted for any crime that is listed anywhere in the Prevention of Organized Crime Act and neither has he ever been convicted for attempting to commit any crime listed anywhere in the Prevention of Organized Crime Act.
Simon Prophet has not violated any part of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act but the Asset and Forfeiture Unit has violated Simon Prophet.
Section 25(1) of the Constitution says that “no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property”.
The Concise Oxford
dictionary describes “arbitrary” as
an adjective meaning “derived from mere
opinion”. “Opinion” is described by the Concise Oxford dictionary as a
noun meaning “a view held as
probable”.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act allows itself to deprive people of their property specifically on a “balance of probabilities”. The very words themselves within the Prevention of Organized Crime Act are in conflict with the Constitution. It would take an idiot to argue against these observations.
The state, the Cape Town
High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal and the
Section 25(1) of the Bill of Rights says that “No one can be deprived of property” and that should be sufficient to suspend the Prevention of Organized Crime Act from doing what it is doing but the Constitution is yet more forceful because it elaborates on this issue by including that “no law may permit arbitrary deprivation”.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is a law that by its very nature is arbitrary. Prophet lost his home through a “suspicion” in the absence of a crime. If “suspicion” is not arbitrary then what is?
“Suspicion” is defined in the Concise Oxford dictionary as an “unconfirmed believe”.
There simply is no basis to violate a person’s dignity by an “unconfirmed believe”?
Section 25(2) (b) of the
Constitution says “Property may be expropriated only in terms of general
application subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner
of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or
approved by a court.”
Prophet’s home was seized in 2001 and by an order of the high court he was compelled to pay his home mortgage bond to the bank up until five months after he was evicted from his home. He was evicted from his home on 28th September 2007 but in 2008 even though he has been evicted he continued to pay the mortgage bond for the same house until February. Who is benefiting from his hard earned money? No civilized person could say that such a set of circumstances is fair.
If the civil courts are saying that his house committed a crime then are they also saying that his bond repayments have also committed a crime? Prophet acquired business rights for the property. Have these business rights of Prophet also committed a crime? Prophet suffered the loss of his business rights along with his home itself. He lost his place to live and he also lost his opportunity to earn a living.
54 Balfour Street has been expropriated. In terms of section 25(2) (b) of the Bill of Rights, the interests of First National Bank have been considered but in terms of section 25(2) (b) of Act 108 of 1996, Prophet’s interests as an innocent owner have been ignored.
An “unconfirmed believe” does not have the weight to limit Prophet’s supreme non-derogable right to the protection of his presumption of innocent or the protection of his right to dignity. Also an “unconfirmed believe” does not have the weight to limit any of his rights to property.
16 judges have ruled in favour of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act and Prophet’s home has been forfeited but it does not matter how many judges have ruled against Prophet because an “unconfirmed believe” will always be an “unconfirmed believe” and as such a “suspicion” can never transform itself into a fact “beyond all reasonable doubt”.
The word "reasonable" and the word "suspicion" are incompatible with each other. What is "reasonable" about an unconfirmed believe?
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 concerns itself with criminal matters and the invasive liberties that it affords to itself encroach and derogate laws of innocence and dignity. The Prevention of Organized Crime Act must be seen and considered in the totality of all consequences that may arise there from. It cannot be seen in isolation from the ramifications of its application.
Nicola Daniels is an innocent squatter who has lived on the property for more than 10 years. The state has used the Prevention of Organized Crime Act to arbitrary evict her from 54 Balfour Street which is a violation of her rights in terms of section 25(1) and her rights in terms of section 25(2) (b) have also been ignored because no mention of her interest has ever been made and so in terms of section 25(3) it goes without saying that these her rights are also being ignored and it is also apparent that her rights in terms of section 25(4) (a) are also being ignored but worse than that the state and the civil courts are revealing that they are diametrically opposed to the public interest in terms of the nation’s commitment to land reform in terms of section 25(4) (a) because Nicola Daniels is a disadvantaged woman who has been a victim of apartheid for 20 years and the state and the civil courts are siding with a white male foreigner who will be laughing all the way to the bank if he can usurp her home where she has been living for more than 10 years.
Constitutional laws regarding property are there for a reason and those laws must be enforced. Neither the state nor any judge is empowered to violate the Bill of Rights. Legislation and legal action that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid.
Public interest in the prevention of crime.
The state’s key argument for justification of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act is that it is an effective crime fighting tool to combat organized crime and serious crime but that argument is without substance. When the state brought its action against Prophet, methamphetamine was unknown. The forfeiture of 54 Balfour Street has single handedly fired the public’s curiosity and according to reports in the media, methamphetamine is now the scourge of the Western Cape and it would appear from the media that the public demand for methamphetamine now exceeds all other illegal drugs.
Figures supplied by the South African Police Service forensic laboratory in Cape Town that were submitted to the Constitutional Court show that within 4 years of the civil action against Prophet that there has been a seven thousand five hundred and ninety three percent increase in the number of methamphetamine cases sent to the South African Police Service.
The Prevention of Organized Crime Act should more appropriately be called the “Promotion of Organized Crime Act” because with regard to this case that is what the statistics have revealed.
The forfeiture of
The above graph expose