HOME

Judge Eramus lied.

This video exposes Judge Erasmus as a liar. 

54 Balfour Street has never done anything wrong but, by following a political agenda to enforce an unlawful Act of Parliament, the judge has condemned himself into all eternity. Watch the video and you decide if the judge was right or wrong and then ask yourself if the judge might ever admit that he was wrong? What will it take for the Republic of South Africa to see that the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 is unlawful?

Below is paragraph 12 of the Erasmus judgment which exposes him to be a liar and manipulator. These are not extracts from the criminal trial. This was a civil trial that ran concurrent with the criminal trial. These extracts are taken from a trial completely different from the criminal trial but which centered on the same and the identical allegations. Is this or is this not double jeopardy (?) and to make matters extremely worse for himself, Judge Erasmus arrived at his wrong judgement in the absence of any evidence put before him. His entire conclusions were arrived at from hearsay allegations against Prophet. How can anyone claim that a trial is fair when it is concluded in the absence of evidence? Most people are shocked to learn that Prophet was not even present at the hearings. Clearly this civil trial which resulted in depriving Prophet of his property was gross violations of Constitutional law, common law and natural law.

Paragraph 12 of the Judge Erasmus judgement reads as follows:

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 pink highlight exposes the judge as a liar. Phemylacetic acid is not a drug. The judge is lying through his teeth to say that it is a drug.

So ends paragraph 12 of the Erasmus judgement.

Whatever else is said in the judgement does not excuse the judge's criminal intent against Prophet. In some Moslem countries thieves have their hands cut off.

The Judge lied,

plain and simple.

In the criminal trial 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 Erasmus, in a forum outside of the criminal trial and seperate from the criminal trial, 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. Not a single piece of physical 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 yet even more worse for himself, Judge Erasmus:

1) did not understand the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, 

2) used information 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 of "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 Judge Erasmus and the Asset and Forfeiture Unit 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 civil trials right up to the Constitutional Court itself.

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 no drugs or traces of illegal drugs were found by the police drug forensic scientists.

The journalists who have published statements that drugs were found at 54 Balfour Street have lied. Records from court documents contradict newpaper claims and the criminal court transcripts are available from Veritas Transcriptions Pty (Ltd) in Cape Town and the facts are there to expose the lies of the media who have been intent on slandering Prophet.

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 being in possession of or experimenting with any of these chemicals.

The call outs in the three cartoons below are taken directly from the criminal court transcripts of the second criminal trial case number 16/236/03. These trials ran concurrently with the civil trial but they were only concluded after the civil trial judgement. The transcripts are available from Veritas Transcriptions Pty (Ltd) in Cape Town.

When the investigating officer admits that the suspect cannot be charged then how how do you suppose that the suspect can be convicted?

It is a blatant lie to say that Prophet was acquitted on a "technicality". 

Below is the first part of a 7 page document which was circulated by the National Prosecuting Authority after Prophet had been acquited of all wrongdoing.

In the opening sentence, the Director of the Public Prosecutions, admits that "after careful consideration of the matter" the National Prosecuting Authority has agreed with the verdict of the magistrate in the criminal trial where Prophet was found "Not Guilty" and this document was submitted to the Constitutional Court to further confirm Prophet's innocence but it was rejected by the ten judges and Prophet was not allowed to submit this document in the defense of his innocence.

Signed and sealed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Quiz question: Where does it say anywhere that people who have been acquitted of wrong doing can be punished because they are a suspect?

Answer: The Prevention of Organized Crime Act can punish any suspect who is suspected of commissioning a suspected commission of an offence.

Quiz question: Is this consistent with what we read in Section 35 of the Constitution?

Quiz answer: Well? What is your answer?  

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 presumption of innocence is a non-derogable supreme law.

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 (4^th) 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.

Can we say in a civil court of law that judge Desai was acquitted on a “technicality” and that he is therefore guilty? Can we say that a written statement signed under oath by the woman who claims to have been raped by Desai constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” that he did commission a crime listed in schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act.

On the 28^th 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 reasonable grounds in South Africa to punish people who have been found not guilty. The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is unreasonable.

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 and fair 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.

It is deplorable that the civil courts including the Constitutional Court did not absolutely acknowledge his innocence after he was found not guilty in his criminal trial.

Every accused person has the right to be presumed innocent during the proceedings of the criminal trial.

Equal before the law means different things for different people.

In violation of his right to a fair trial, four civil trials have condemned Prophet.

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 history of any crime stands before the court. The only proof that we have of crime having been committed at 54 Balfour Street are the crimes that were committed by the drug police.

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 a filthy blemish on the face of 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 draft a new Act of Parliament called THE PREVENTION OF MURDERERS ACT and in that act say that this new act 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 chooses to surmise 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 Constitutional Court refused to allow the criminal court record to be submitted as evidence. None of the civil court judges are entitled to diminish Prophet’s non-derogable supreme right to presumption of innocence. When evidence is submitted into a trial and then that evidence is refused when the evidence is pointing clearly to the innocence of the accused then that is a breach of justice and there can be no excuse for any court for any such failure to let the facts be told.

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.

"No one may be deprived of property and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property"

Posted to the web on: 13 March 2007

Breaking every safeguard in the book

 - by - Professor Robert Vivian

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 is Robert W Vivian, Professor of Finance and Insurance, University of the Witwatersrand . This article may be republished without prior consent but with acknowledgement to the author.  

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 and how many people are going to be impoverished through this insidious law? Willie Hofmeyr must be stopped before he leads South Africa into a civil war.

Is "suspicion" a punishable offence?

Simon Prophet has not given a proper explanation for what he was doing on the day that the drug police violated his rights to privacy and his reply in the civil court papers was “ridiculous” but so what?

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 or anyone else for that matter 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 Acts of Parliament that exist and he is unsure as to where any such Acts might determine 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 Acts or some other Act that he has never heard of.

Prophet is aware of one South African who has been persecuted by the South African Justice Department for her interest and activities associated with radionics. Dr Kathleen R Mathews was determined to be guilty in 1974 of a crime because of her dedication to the unconventional and some might say "ridiculous" science of radionics.

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 Constitutional Court were rejected by that court yet the same court quoted from the extra affidavits that were submitted by the state. How “unfair” can a trial get?

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 have conveniently for them they have turned 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 Cape Town drug lord.

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.

An innocent man has been deprived of his property without compensation.

The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is an established Act of Parliament but it is an unlawful act because it is unconstitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the republic and any Act of Parliament 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.

In OJ Simpson's civil trial a crime had been committed. 

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. Few people know that OJ Simpson was, at the time of the murders, on a double dose of Prozac. In the event of this being true and in the light of what is now known about Prozac (click here) then liability for the death of these two people shifts dramatically away from OJ Simpson. 

The South African 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 happened and also 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 and this has been established as a fact beyond reasonable doubt. Any claim coming from the drug police about things that may have been found there is confidential and those alleged things were spoken about and speculated about in the civil trial without first establishing the legality of that speculation. This issue was raised in papers before the first judge, Judge Erasmus, but he ignored his obligation to secure Prophet’s right to privacy. Speculation was unlawfully presented by the state in a biased fashion to make Prophet appear to be guilty of a crime and this took place within the time frame where Prophet was tongue-tied and had the right to silence 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 man to break his silence by threatening him with the loss of his home and his income is worse than being threatened with electric shocks.

3) His right not to be treated in a cruel way; section 12(1) (e) is a supreme non-derogable right.

Violating a natural law and depriving a man and his family of their home because of legal industrial chemicals is an act of cruelty because there must be a relationship between crime and punishment but when a man and his family lose their home in the absence of a crime then is that not considered to be 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.

The value of the chemicals found in the illegal search was estimated by the drug police to be 2 thousand rand. The value of Prophet's home was estimated by the state to be 350 thousand rand.

The criminal trial found Prophet to be innocent but in the event that Prophet had been found guilty and based on other case histories at the time then Prophet would have been facing a fine of about 20 thousand rand and a suspended sentence. 

The loss of his home far exceeds any punishment that would have been imposed by a criminal court.

When you consider that the chemicals found in Prophet's home were not drugs and that it was not illegal for Prophet to have them in his possession then it gets worse.

5) His right to not be arbitrarily deprived of property; section 25(1).

Depriving a man of his home because there is 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).

Prophet is the innocent owner of 54 Balfour Street and he has been deprived of his property without compensation. The Australian couple who took Prophet's property are renting it out at R1 000 per day while Prophet lives in poverty.

7) His right to fair compensation for property that is expropriated; section 25(3).

The state sold Prophet's home in 2003 yet in 2008 Prophet was still paying the mortgage bond on the property. Prophet has not been compensated for these payments and can we ask who has taken possession of the value of this money?

8) His right to have access to adequate housing; section 26(1).

Depriving someone of their home is to deprive them of their place to sleep and sleep deprivation has been identified by the Central Intelligence Agency in America as a form of torture.

9) His right not to be evicted through legislation that is arbitrary; section 26(3).

The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is arbitrary.

10) His right to administrative action that is lawful; section 33(1).

The Prevention of Organized Crime Act violates the Constitution left, right and centre.

11) His right to administrative action that is reasonable; section 33(1).

The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is despicable.

12) His right to administrative action that is procedurally fair; section 33(1).

In a world where fairness reigns supreme then who owns what is determined by a willing buyer and a willing seller. It is not the business of government to determine who is allowed to own what.

13) His right to remain silent; section 35(1) (a) is a supreme non-derogable right. 

Prophet was forced to reply to state allegations in a civil trial outside of the criminal trial and during and before the criminal trial had been concluded.

14) His right to a fair trial; section 35 is a supreme non-derogable right.

No physical evidence of any kind was presented to Judge Erasmus in the civil trial and no oral testimony or cross examination took place in this trial if you can, that is, call it a trial. Prophet was not even present at the hearings. Judge Erasmus deprived Prophet of his property using nothing more than hearsay allegations.

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; section 35(3) (h) is a supreme non-derogable right.

20) His right not to testify during the proceedings of his criminal trial; section 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; section 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; section 35(3) (k) is a supreme non-derogable right.

Technical information relating to chemical formulae and chemical compounds from the forensic drug police were submitted in the civil trial 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.

The search warrant used by the drug police to gain access into Prophet's home has been invalidated in two different criminal trials and the search and the seizure of things from 54 Balfour Street has been determined, as a fact beyond reasonable doubt, to have been unlawful.

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 people 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).

In terms of "protecting the public from criminal depredations", the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998 is not justifiable because with regard to methamphetamine drug crime, 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, in volume, 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 and the civil court judges cannot deny these statistics. Anyone would be lying through their teeth to say that the forfeiture of Prophet's home has prevented methamphetamine drug crime.

The progress of the civil trials against Prophet walk hand in hand with a corresponding escalation of methamphetamine drug crime 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 1of the Table of Non-derogable Rights. Prophet can show that the Prevention of Organized Crime 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.

 The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is unethical. 

The deprivation of Prophet’s property has not been justifiable because the bold proclamations about the effectiveness of civil forfeiture as a crime fighting mechanism are now exposed to be utter rubbish.

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 or anywhere else in South Africa was unheard of. 

The gangs on the Cape Flats who have always been selling drugs but not methamphetamine only turned their attention to this drug after Willie Hofmeyr attacked Prophet in 2001. Willie Hofmeyr has not prevented the abuse of this drug and it is now a logical conclusion that the actions of Hofmeyr coupled with media presentations that highlighted Prophet's civil trials have worked hand in hand for methamphetamine to have become the problem that it now is.

To try to argue that methamphetamine is such terrible drug that it was going to become a problem regardless does not negate Prophet's claim 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 mind that the Prevention of Organized Crime Act has failed to deliver on its promise.

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 because of unsubstantiated and disproved allegations against Prophet?

It has been the forfeiture itself of Prophet’s home that has promoted methamphetamine 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 drug crime.

If Prophet had been working secretly in his garage to promote methamphetamine drug 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. He would be lying to say that he had.

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 and the deprivation of his home and his income (Prophet had obtained council permission to operate a second hand busines from the garage of the premises) 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 the Judge 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. All the evidence of his lies stand on this website as facts before the world that the judge has lied.

As far as Prophet is concerned the Asset and Forfeiture Unit is an organized gang. Read the definitions in the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998. According to this Act then, the Asset and Forfeiture Unit, do qualify as an organized gang. You see, everything is open to interpretation. It all depends on how you look at life.

Is the state above the law?

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.

Prophet claims that the state has violated the following subsections from Schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act of 1998: 

1) Subsection 5. Public violence.

The state is directly responsible for the death of one of Prophet's pets.

2) Subsection 7. Assault with intent to do grievious bodily harm.

Prophet was assaulted by a member of the state and so was Nicola Daniels during the “unlawful” search.

3) 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 of dealing in drugs and up until the present time which is at the time of this writing now ten years since he was "unlawfully" arrested, and outside of state allegations,  the state is unable to show so much as even 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.

4) Subsection 16. Malicious damage to property.

There is video footage of a member of the state kicking Prophet's security gate several times. It was irreparably damaged.

5) 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 there are also allegations against the drug police that they 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 SL500 and his Volkswagen Citi Golf and also took all the furniture in his home, TVs and computers and also property belonging to other people.

Prophet was unlawfully arrested, detained and incarcerated 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 by the state was thrown into the street.

The money that Prophet paid into his home loan account for the bond on 54 Balfour Street 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.

6) Subsection 28. Any offence contemplated in section 1(1) and 1A (1) of the Intimidation Act, 1982 (Act No. 72 of 1982).

Prophet alleges that within arm's reach a drug policeman pointed a gun to Prophet's head and threatened to murder him. This is corroborated by another witness as to what happened.

7) Subsection 30. Perjury.

This has been established as a fact beyond reasonable doubt in the pretrial hearings of both the criminal trials.

Also, this website points to many of the lies that were submitted by the state in affidavits that were submitted by the state to the civil courts.

8) 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.

On the 21st August 2009 an attempt was made on the life of Simon Prophet and there is a reasonable suspicion that the Asset and Forfeiture Unit could be behind the attack.

Click this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxsfI40QnQw to watch a video that exposes some of the lies presented by the state and watch the video until you see Prophet taking off his shirt to show where the bullets were fired into him.

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 in multiple violations of Constitutional law.

When you are confronted with the harsh reality that all the recent American president's are directly involved with illegal drug trafficking then is it so difficult to consider the possibility that South Africa's politicians are also implicated in the same way?

Who is shipping the heroin from Afghanistan to South Africa? That country is now owned and controlled by America so you can't point a finger at the Taliban.

Every Cape Town heroin addict knows that heroin is being sold openly on Cape Town's station deck right under the nose of the mayor's office yet Helen Zille seems to be oblivious of the fact and in spite of her busy schedule she finds time to travel elsewhere to march and protest through the streets of Mitchell's Plain condemning the drug dealers there.

The drug laws are a dismal failure and does Helen Zille not know that her proposals to get tough on drug crimes is a waste of time and money or is she secretly playing into a scheme to protect the interests of the global criminal drug syndicates? 

The only way to lower the drug crime statistics is to legalize the drug 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 zero impact on the overall 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 America “A Utopian Dream.” 

“I believe that a drug-free America is a utopian dream.  Some form of drug addiction or substance abuse is endemic in most societies.  Insisting on the total eradication of drug use can only lead to failure and disappointment.  The war on drugs cannot be won; but, like the Vietnam War, it has polarized our society.”  (George Soros, Op-Ed, “A Look At … The Drug War Debate,” The Washington Post, 2/2/97)    

Who the blazes is Simon Prophet?

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.

All of the above headlines presume that Prophet is guilty and when Prophet was acquitted in the criminal trial the newspapers were dead silent. 

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 people 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 Constitutional Court civil case against Prophet, the media were back in full force with national front page headlines.

According to the above report, Prophet’s home is a “tik house”.  

Stormfront.org published the above false report. On what grounds are they permitted to refer to Prophet as a "Cape Town drug lord"?

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? 

When 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? 

When a man is convicted of bribing an official and is sentenced to 15 years jail then can we say there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the official who accepted the bribe is guilty of a crime as was the case with the current president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma and when Willie Hofmeyr is presented with such scenarios then why does he act sometimes but not always?

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 completely circumvent constitutional conderations when and where they want but in civilized countries and according to the Republic of South Africa's Constitution it is only when you have proof “beyond all reasonable doubt” that you can call someone a drug dealer or a rapist or a corrupt government official and then punish them.

Calling someone a drug dealer or a rapist or a racketeerer outside of “proof beyond all reasonable doubt” is a violation of that man or that  woman'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”. 

Section 10 of the Constitution does not permit nor does it tolerate determining dignity on a standards that do not constitute proof such as "proof on a balance of probabilities". Probabilities do not constitute proof. This term used by the Asset and Forfeiture Unit is a play on words that is misleading. There is only one standard of proof will suffice in such matters and that is "proof beyond all reasonable doubt". Anything short of that is a violation of constitutional law.

Prophet's right to dignity in section 10 of the Constitution is a non-derogable supreme civil right and more emphasis has been placed upon it than the right to life in section 11. (S v Makwanyane 1995 (6) BCCR 665, 19953 SA 391 (cc).) The right to dignity is a “pre-eminent value in the Constitution, even more so than the right to life”. The protection of human dignity is inherent in the protection of virtually all other rights.

Affidavits must have been submitted against Judge Desai and South Africa President Jacob 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 President Jacob Zuma’s home is an instrumentality of a suspected commission of a sex 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 President Zuma’s home is an instrumentality of a suspected sex crime?

Why did Willie Hofmeyr decide to not use the Prevention of Organized Crime Act against President Jacob Zuma? To say that the president was acquited of the allegations is no excuse because Simon Prophet was also acquited of the allegations.

So what's the difference?

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?

Would it not be slander to call the president's home an "illegal sex den"?  Is it not also slander to refer to Prophet’s home a “drug factory”?

Drug dealing is a serious offence but so is raping women.

Does innocent until proven guilty apply only to alleged rapists or is innocent until proven guilty a law that applies to everyone including people who are suspected of dealing in drugs?

Prophet has never been found guilty of contravening any part of section 13 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking  Act. (See section 22 of schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, 1998)

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.

 Rats that live in sewers do not have property rights.

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 Constitutional Court have deprived Prophet of his property on a balance of probabilities in violation of section 25(1) of the Constitution, Act 108 of 1996.

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 of property".

The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is an Act of Parliament 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 28^th 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 and her son Garth have lived at 54 Balfour Street for more than 10 years. The state has used the Prevention of Organized Crime Act to arbitrary evict them from 54 Balfour Street which is a violation of their rights in terms of section 25(1) and their rights in terms of section 25(2) (b) have also been ignored because the civil courts made no mention of their interest so in terms of section 25(3) it goes without saying that these their rights are also being ignored and it is also apparent that their 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 have sided with a white male foreigner who is now laughing all the way to the bank since he has usurped her home where she had previously lived 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.

The Prevention of Organized Crime Act does not have authority to eliminate the rights in section 25 but if such is tolerated then by so doing it also encroaches on other rights and when seen in the light of all the ramifications that follow from the implementation of such a law then the Prevention of Organized Crime Act cannot be seen in any other way than it is “inconsistent” with the Bill of Rights.

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 54 Balfour Street has massively promoted the crime of dealing in methamphetamine.

The above graph exposes paragraph 30 (volume 7, page 635 and 636) of the Supreme Court of Appeal judgement to be utter rubbish and such silly concepts must never be allowed to threaten the Bill of Rights.

No crime has been committed at 54 Balfour Street. There exits only a “suspicion” that a past unknown time crime may have been committed or that an unknown future time crime may yet be committed and no matter how strong the suspicion may appear to be, or interpreted to be, or argued to be, it will remain into all eternity as nothing more than a suspicion. The suspicion was never based on any illegal thing that was (“unlawfully”) uncovered. Nothing illegal was found and no crime was committed. The entire “suspicion” is based on speculation.

Why fall over the Constitution when you can side step it?

Section 35 of the Constitution consists of 5 subsections which include 32 sub clauses.

Section 35 is more than twice as comprehensive as any other section within the Bill of Rights and out of a total of 32 non-derogable civil rights within the Bill of Rights, 20 subsections fall under section 35. It makes one suspicious that whoever compiled section 35 may have had criminal tendencies.

Many may consider section 35 to be too overprotective of criminal suspects. Prophet shares the same opinion but his opinion is only an opinion and his opinion or anyone else’s for that matter is not relevant in terms of this law.

Outside the incompetence and lethargy of state employees section 35 is possibly the biggest stumbling block for the National Prosecuting Authority in combating crime and many victims of crime do have solid grounds to complain but until such time that section 35 is rewritten, if that should ever happen, section 35 is currently a supreme law within the Republic of South Africa and it must be enforced.

Love it or hate it the state and the courts including civil courts and the general public do not have the authority to tamper with it or to reinterpret it or to ignore it or to circumvent it unless the proper means have been pursued to have it rewritten.

As a crime fighting mechanism Prophet says he can understand why many would welcome the Prevention of Organized Crime Act but any unbiased and diligent person will admit that the legal liberties that are being afforded to the Prevention of Organized Crime Act are making a mockery of the legal intentions and principles within section 35 of the Constitution. Acts of Parliament that are inconsistent with the Constitution are invalid and therefore the Prevention of Organized Crime Act is unlawful.

17 civil court judges armed themselves with pieces of paper and in the absence of any statement spoken by Prophet and in the absence of any witnesses and in the absence of any statement spoken by any witness and still worse; in the absence of any crime, these judges determined to destroy Prophet’s dignity and they determined to destroy his life as he once knew it. Prophet was not even in the court room when Erasmus took his home. How in God's name can anyone then say that in such circumstances Prophet was given a fair trial?

In terms of how the Constitution has been intended then all of the civil court judges have dealt unfairly with Prophet in the civil trials.

Section 35(3) (h) states that “every accused person has a right to a fair trial which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings”

Prophet had the constitutional right to have chosen not to be present at the Erasmus civil trial and not to have revealed relevant information because this civil trial violated section 35(3) (h). Subsequently that civil trial is null and void.

The right to remain silent is a rule of law that is centuries old. R v Warwickshall (1783) 1 Leach at 263 when it was said that “A confession forced from the mind by flattery of hope or by the torture of fear (e.g. loosing your home to the Asset and Forfeiture Unit) comes in so questionable a shape, when it is to be considered as evidence of guilt, that no credit ought to be given to it”.   

In Ibrahim v R (1914) AC 599 (PC) at 610 Lord Sumner said that this was a rule of policy. It would appear that the rule derived from a determination to eradicate the oppressive and often barbaric methods of interrogation employed by the Star Chamber in 17^th century England to extract confessions from accused persons. From the abhorrence of those methods there developed the right of silence. Forcing Prophet into two civil trials before his second criminal trial had commenced was a violation of his rights to silence. It cannot be interpreted in any other way.

The implementation of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act during the proceedings of Prophet’s criminal trial was psychological torture in the extreme. There may be judges who would argue against this interpretation but you would need to be Prophet to know what such action feels like.

Prophet was made legally homeless 4 years before the conclusion of his criminal trails.

The right to silence.

The media throughout the civil trials against Prophet drew correlations between Boesak's right to silence and Prophet's right to silence but the media never drew attention to the fact that Boesak was never attacked by the Prevention of Organized Crime Act.

The case concerning Boesak and his decision to not say anything during his criminal trial is far removed from what was happening to Prophet.

Boesak was defending himself in a criminal trial. He was not defending himself in two civil trials that were running concurrently with his criminal trial. He was embroiled in defending himself in only one criminal trial while Prophet was trying to defend himself against two civil attacks during the proceedings of a criminal trial which through failure on the part of the justice department became two criminal trials and the 4 trials were all centered on the identical issue.

Section 35(3) (h) does not permit any such situation to arise and it is a non-derogable supreme right. The state, Erasmus and the judges in Bloemfontein and the judges in the Constitutional Court and the Cape Town High Court judge who signed the order for Prophet to be evicted from his home have all ignored Prophet’s supreme non-derogable civil rights in terms of section 35(3) (h) of the Constitution.

His presumption of innocence was not adhered to and his dignity was destroyed when in all of the four civil trials the judges used unsubstantiated and "unlawful" testimony from affidavits in civil proceedings to say that he was a criminal by publicly proclaiming him to be a drug dealer.

When we compare Boesak's right to silence in relation to Simon Prophet then it's interesting to note that Boesak was found to be guilty and was subsequently sentence to a prison term for having stolen money that was intended to help the poor. Why doesn't Willie Hofmeyr seize the assets of Boesak as proceeds of crime?

Being pardoned does not protect Boesak if being found not guilty has not protected Prophet.

The Supreme Court of Appeal.

In the Supreme Court of Appeal judgement the judges rely on several doubtful statements coming from the state including the impossible statement from Venter that refers to 1-phenyl-2-propanone and chilled methylamine. In paragraph 8.5 Venter states that “a combination of these two substances excludes the possibility of any other resultant substance but methamphetamine”. The Supreme Court of Appeal judges quote Venter to demonstrate Prophet’s guilt and in a court room it looks impressive but in a chemical laboratory it is obvious that an innocent man is being falsely accused because what Venter is suggesting is simply not possible.

Benzene and water do not mix. We know from the “recipe” in exhibit C (page 46, photo 21) that the 1-phenyl-2-propanone (if that is what it was?) that Prophet dropped into the toilet bowl (photo 1,2 and 3) was in combination with benzene and we know from photo 35 that the chilled methylamine (if that is what it was?) that Nicola Daniels is said to have thrown into the garbage disposal unit of the kitchen sink was in combination with water (40% in H20).

It is imaginative to assume that it was Prophet’s intention to mix these combinations of chemicals but if you are pursuing conventional science then it is also nonsensical to suggest that this was his intention because the molecules of these substances are incompatible with each other and no reaction would result even if it had been Prophet’s intention to combine these chemicals. All that would happen is that the 1-phenyl-2-propanone and benzene would float to the top of the methylamine and the water. Shaking the container would be to no effect because on standing the chemicals would continue to separate. Water and oil or benzene don’t mix. Who doesn’t know that? Even on a balance of probabilities you can’t get water and benzene to mix.

At room temperature, methylamine is a gas. As the chilled methylamine warms to room temperature all that will happen is that the methylamine will evaporate from the solution and escape into the atmosphere.

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies." Extract from Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf 1925).

The above table represents the approximate spatial volume of 54 Balfour Street (360 cubic metres). The shaded box within the grid represents the approximate comparative spatial volume of chemicals and equipment that was illegally seized by the drug police. The chemicals and all of the equipment fit into 4 cardboard boxes which represent less than 1 cubic metre.

In paragraph 29 of the Supreme Court of Appeal judgement the judge says that "so far as the spatial use of the house was concerned almost the entire house was used to either store chemicals and equipment...or to manufacture methamphetamine".

Why would you have to dedicate an “entire” house to store what fits into a shopping trolley?

In an effort to add credibility to his false claims the judge repeats himself in paragraph 38 where he says that “virtually the entire house and garage were used to store or keep chemicals or other equipment”. The judge is exaggerating to the point of lying because everything that was removed “unlawfully” by the state fits into the boot of a small car.

The judge conjures up an image of a house being converted into a warehouse of illegal chemicals and drugs. From his distortion of facts you’d think that Prophet needed an hydraulic fork lift just to move things around.

According to the drug police the value of the chemicals is R2 000 (Volume 2, page 142, paragraph 6.5, line 21).. Why would an entire house and garage be required to store a small box of chemicals? Is this judge also lying?

No one in their proper mind would agree with the judge. 

His knowledge of geometry leaves as much to be desired as does his knowledge about chemistry. Ignorance is forgivable but the falsification of facts to destroy an innocent man's life is not.

Prophet’s life has been thrown into chaos and the actions against him must be seen for what they are.

The emotional and psychological trauma that he has undergone through the constitutionally illegal actions of the state and the civil courts cannot be construed as a punishment because he has not commissioned a crime. The civil action compelled Prophet away from his right to silence. A “talk or suffer” situation can only be construed as torture and section 12(1) (d) prohibits torture in any way. This is a supreme non-derogable law.

The criminal accusation against Prophet has now been concluded and Willie Hofmeyr and his Asset and Forfeiture Unit must now face the consequences of having sold the home of an innocent man.

It is a simple exercise for Prophet to show that many dozens of his civil rights have been violated and that many of those civil rights are non-derogable rights. He can show that since the day of his arrest on 31^st January 2001, 66 of his civil rights have been violated and that included within these violations there are 18 subdivisions that are classified as non-derogable civil rights.

In paragraph 32 of the Supreme Court of Appeal judgement a casual remark is made that he was acquitted in the criminal trial because of a “technicality”. When Supreme Court judges are interpreting 66 civil rights violations as a “technicality” then the justice department needs to be restructured.

Prophet was not acquited on a "technicality".

The first transcripts of the second criminal trial were not produced until after the Supreme Court of Appeal judgement so we are only left to wonder how the judge arrived at such a remark. Without the transcripts he had no authority to make any such claim. The media was quick to repeat his statement but Prophet was not acquitted on a technicality and the judge violated Prophet’s right to dignity to infer by the “technicality” remark that Prophet was guilty.

Prophet tried to present the criminal court record to the Constitutional Court so that this remark could be addressed but the Constitutional Court refused to accept it. That is why it was so easy for the Constitutional Court judge to say in paragraph 56 of the Constitutional Court judgement that “on the evidence before this Court it is beyond doubt that the property was used to enable and facilitate the applicant’s illegal activities.”  

Disgracefully, the criminal court transcripts were not before the Constitutional Court because as evidence, the transcripts, were disallowed by the Constitutional Court because had such evidence been before the Constitutional Court then the verdict would have had to have been different and the Erasmus verdict would have had to have been overturned.

Erasmus did not respect Prophet’s non-derogable “supreme” right to silence or Prophet’s non-derogable “supreme” right to presumption of innocence. Had Erasmus waited until after the criminal trial then the state would not have dared to try to forfeit his home and no judge would have tolerated any attempt by the state to forfeit his home because the “facts” would have been “before the court”. 

Sadly for Prophet all that was “before the courts” were unsubstantiated “affidavits”. 

Affidavits are not "evidence" and it is a travesty of justice that the Constitutional Court judges have chosen to elevate unsubstantiated affidavits to the same status as that of evidence.

As we know from the President Jacob Zuma rape trial and the Judge Desai rape trial, affidavits are not “facts”.  

Prophet has been treated to the point of cruelty to the extent that he lost his home on mere affidavits. Shame on the civil courts!

Innocent until proven guilty.

The criminal court transcripts reveal that after two days of testimony from the arresting drug police officer the criminal court produced so much “doubt” that the magistrate said that, in his view, the allegations did not even make for a prima facie case and Prophet was acquitted without further ado.

Apart from the civil rights violations Prophet has also been the victim of criminal brutality by the state ranging from assault, a murder threat, tampering with evidence, perjury and, through state negligence, the death of one of his pets. Two criminal courts of law have established that the entry of the state into his home was illegal and because the presence of the state in his home was illegal it can logically be concluded that the state in consequence to its actions whilst there violated sections 5, 7, 15, 16, 17 and 28 of schedule 1 of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act. Witnesses, court records and a video tape are available to support these allegations.

These things must be addressed because if these things have happened to Prophet then they have happened to other people and if a course of action is not taken to put a blunt end to such behavior coming from the state then the struggle to freedom has not been won and we do not live within the safety and security of a constitutional democracy.

Prophet’s alleged crime (and it must be stressed that the "allegation" has been proven to be a false and the so-called "crime" has been shown to be non-existent) pales in comparison.

Whether the state can live with it or not it is now historical legal fact that Prophet is innocent of all criminal accusations coming from the state. For the Supreme Court of Appeal judges to try to imply in paragraph 32 that he won on a “technicality” that he is therefore guilty baffles the mind of an ordinary person.

Where is the abode of freedom?

Section 7(1) of the Bill of Rights is correct in that it enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.

It is a limitation to say that freedom is what the law allows because the ordinary person in the street is unable to acquire enough money to access what the law allows so as a nation we must interpret freedom as it should be interpreted. “Freedom” is defined in the Oxford dictionary as “personal liberty, liberty of action and the right to do.” Freedom is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and is what we all want but how can we hope to achieve freedom when we live in a society that is riddled with crime and disagreement?

The lover of freedom is a frustrated creature because there are so many laws that exist that say that we are not at liberty and that we do not have the “right to do” and that exposing our secret desires might put us in jail and it is true to say that laws do not exalt freedom but laws are the sacrifices we must make in order to survive our own and the animal instincts of our fellow human beings but as an emerging nation we must arrive at some compromise between the safety of society and the individual’s freedom to be and the individual’s “right to do” and there is only one place where the true concept of freedom can begin to emerge and it is a place that is sacred and holy and it has always been that and it is called your home.

Privacy affords freedom in a socially peaceful way. The whole basis of privacy and the whole basis for the protection of this fundamental human right is that the individual can live and go beyond the boundaries of social consciousness without being attacked. The basic human right to be free within the privacy and the sanctity of one’s home or one’s “castle” is crucial because it allows the individual to engage in the expansion of mind and the evolution of the human species without the restraints of a society that clings to the boring repetition and survival of its limited self. If the individual cannot be free within his own home then where can he be free?

Not one illegal thing of any kind was found in Prophet’s home. He has thousands of books in his home and to try to suggest that he is a drug dealer because some of those books are drug related is insane and prejudices his right to academic freedom. Not one book or one piece of paper in Prophet’s home indicated that if you add 1-phenyl-2-propanone to chilled methylamine that you get methamphetamine.

In a criminal court of law his innocence or guilt in terms of what he knew or suspected according to section 3 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act cannot be determined by the suspicions of the state or any judge. Anyone else’s suspicions are irrelevant because the emphasis lies on what Prophet's suspicions were and so it is only he who can complete the equation in order to be found guilty in terms of section 3 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and so that when he says and can show that he was experimenting with a scheduled substance to develop a non-toxic insect repellant then the state’s criminal accusation against him falls flat. 

When Prophet says and he can show that he was experimenting with a scheduled substance to develop a substance that can be used to improve a speech impediment then also any criminal accusation against him falls flat.

The fact that he lost his home in the Prevention of Organized Crime Act trial and then was found innocent in the criminal trial is a disaster for the Asset and Forfeiture Unit.

For the Supreme Court of Appeal judges to take this scenario and try to twist it around and try to suggest that his acquittal is a plausible cause for the Prevention of Organized Crime Act is an appalling conclusion.

The fact that he was acquitted illustrates in living colour why the Prevention of Organized Crime Act should be abolished. This is the proper and the only way to interpret what has happened. For judges to support the violations of civil rights to the extent that is happening here is indicative that there exists a dangerous conspiracy between the state and the judges because what the judges are suggesting is nothing short of a legal perversion in favour of the state. The benefit of the doubt belongs to the accused. No such benefit is bestowed to the state.

There are also other peculiar matters to consider.

Why would the state push to sell and dispose of an “instrumentality” of a crime when the criminal trial that involved itself with that same alleged instrumentality had not even commenced? The state sold Prophet’s home in 2003. The criminal trial was concluded in 2005. If the house was such an integral part of the alleged crime then on what basis could the state dispose of this “evidence”?

The forfeiture of Prophet’s home is theft.  

In 2005, after Prophet's acquital, the investigating drug officer agreed with Prophet’s lawyer to return Prophet's laboratory equipment? This was the same laboratory equipment that the state had alleged was used as an instrumentality to manufacture the illegal methamphetamine that never existed.

That agreement continued to be delayed and delayed until eventually, Prophet, in desperation was forced to bring a court application to force the drug police to return his laboratory and other property that had been seized during the illegal search conducted by the drug police.

The application went nowhere because the drug police claimed that there was no place to keep everything so everything was destroyed.

Does this sound like baloney to you?

The magistrate then turned around to say that he would be unable to force the drug police to return a thing that doesn't exist.

The state prosecutor who was representing the interest of the drug police in Prophet's application to have his laboratory returned queried if Prophet was even able to remember what had been seized.

Can you imagine a situation in a criminal court room when the state brings a criminal action against someone and then relies on the accused to determine what the evidence is?

This is unbelievable but it's true but how does this most recent court application reflect on the civil court judges who relied on this so called "evidence" to deprive Prophet of his home and kick his family into the street with nowhere to go? 

The state had little option but to follow this strategy because in this application a court order compelling the drug police to return Prophet's laboratory (the evidence?) would have blatantly exposed that no crime had taken place and Prophet's success on that ground would have been damning evidence against the civil court judges and so Prophet was deprived of his laboratory and everything that was basically stolen by the drug police in violation of Section 25 of the Constitution so that the system could protect itself.

Prophet’s home has been forfeited and sold because it is allegedly an instrumentality of an offence so can you imagine what would happen if Prophet's laboratory (another instrumentality?) is returned to him and he again commences with his scientific research with the same alleged criminal laboratory equipment?

Prophet needs to know if he does have the civil right to freedom of expression which includes the right to freedom of scientific research as envisaged in section 16(1) (d) of the Bill of Rights.

Matters such as this need to be cleared up and he needs to know and the whole country needs to know what if any of our civil rights are actually civil rights or is the Bill of Rights just a decorative fairy tale or at most simply a “technicality” as the supreme court judges seem to think.

Prophet’s replying affidavit to Bloemfontein was prepared by himself and it stands naked and unprotected by legal niceties but it came from his heart and it reveals in crystal clarity the depth to which the state has buried itself in hypocrisy. When he submitted his affidavit he was confident that his appeal would be successful but the Supreme Court of Appeal did not refer to any of the issues that he raised. He has a right to a fair trial but how can he fairly defend himself if when he does decide to say something then his words fall on deaf ears?

This affidavit is presented on this website. CLICK HERE

The Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled against Prophet and the Constitutional Court has supported the Supreme Court of Appeal decision and for all the world Prophet is now labeled as a criminal but although the highest court of the land has proclaimed that he is a drug dealer and regardless of who may hold the suspicion, there does exist the absolute and final outcome of his criminal trial that says that he has been acquitted on all counts of the same alleged drug dealing.

Who are we to believe and in such circumstances and how does Prophet preserve his dignity?

Desai placed the preservation order on Prophet’s house and Desai was accused of raping a married woman at 3 o'clock in the morning in a Bombay hotel. At the time he may not have known that she was married but he must have known that he was married. Desai may or may not have raped the woman but it is an historical fact that he raped Prophet of his non-derogable supreme right to be presumed innocent. You do not sign a preservation order against someone you know or "presume" to be innocent!

Prophet has no convictions of dealing in drugs and he has no convictions of being in possession of drugs and if this is the case and it is the case and, now, in 2010 it is still the case then would it be reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt that in fact he is innocent?

Who now is going to establish if the destruction of his life can be justified not only in terms of his rights to dignity but also and perhaps more importantly, in terms of the public interest in that criminal guilt may not be determined from an opinion arrived at in the absence of physical evidence or oral evidence from witnesses?

All considerations in the first civil trial have been founded upon the false assumption that he would be found guilty in his criminal trial and in the Supreme Court of Appeal it was assumed that because he got off on a technicality (which is most definitely not true because Prophet was acquitted because he is not guilty) that therefore a false conclusion could be arrived upon that confirmed that he was guilty but in issues regarding the broader concept of our justice system existing within the framework of South Africa’s constitutional democracy, especially the notion of “innocent until proven guilty”, many constitutional issues have not been taken into account and if they are not addressed then the public interest is being neglected.

When this matter was first brought to the Honourable Justice Wilfred Thring, he asked "What will happen if he is found innocent?" and his very honourable recommendation was "First find him guilty and then the forfeiture." His concerns about "Putting the cart before the horse" have come to pass and although the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court have thus far protected Judge Erasmus this trial will never be over until every court in the land acknowledges Prophet's innocent owner status.

According to Venter (the forensic expert of the drug police) the value of the chemicals found at 54 Balfour Street is between R2 000 and R3 000 (Volume 2, page 142, paragraph 6.5, line 21).

According to Venter this volume of chemicals could have produced 400 to 600 grams of methamphetamine (Volume 1, page 30, paragraph 6, line 5).

According to Smit the value of one gram of methamphetamine is from R700 to R1 000 (Volume 6, page 490, paragraph 24).

These two drug policemen are saying that with the R2 000 worth of chemicals you make R600 000 worth of drugs. You don’t need to be a scientist to grasp that such claims are untrue and one wonders why none of the civil courts did not consider the improbability of such claims.

What kind of idiotic statements are these? Do not let any person be fooled. A public statement that says you can make R600 000 of drugs with R2 000 of chemicals does not curb illegal drug dealing.

According to Erasmus (volume 7, page 592, line 17) methamphetamine is “easy to manufacture and thus is ideal for production in clandestine laboratories in residential areas.” How does this judge suppose he is preventing drug crimes by endorsing this activity? The practical implications of his remark promote drug dealing.

The statements from the police and Judge Erasmus are blatant lies but they have been released into the public domain and have impacted on organized crime and so it can be said that the forfeiture of 54 Balfour Street has played a dramatic role in promoting the methamphetamine drug crime. The facts of history are now there to show us that the forfeiture of Prophet's home has been the single most important catalyst in the proliferation of this drug crime.

Statements coming from drug policeman Smit and Leggett indicate that before the forfeiture of 54 Balfour Street, methamphetamine was unknown as a drug in South Africa. The forfeiture of 54 Balfour Street stimulated the public’s curiosity and the drug has become a drug in demand and from newspaper reports it appears that in the Western Cape the demand for methamphetamine now exceeds all other drugs.

The forfeiture of Prophet’s home has resulted in dozens of labs spring up all over the country.

Methamphetamine has a history of more than 100 years. What brought about the sudden rush of labs since Prophet’s home was forfeited? The only logical conclusion is that the forfeiture itself has contributed to the trend.

There is no foundation in the state’s argument that forfeiting Prophet’s home is sending a "clear" message for people not to engage illegal drugs. It has been the action itself that has caused methamphetamine to be what it has become. If your children have selected methamphetamine over other drugs then the credit for them having made that choice rightfully belongs to Willie Hofmeyr.

The Prevention of Organized Crime Act has not prevented methamphetamine drug crime.

The Prevention of Organized Crime Act has promoted methamphetamine drug crime.

There is no other logical or accurate interpretation of the facts.

Does anyone know what the actual charge was?

The main count of the original charge sheet in the criminal trial was section 5(b). After further further particulars in the first criminal trial it was established and the prosecution agreed that the main count be withdrawn for lack of evidence. When papers were submitted to Erasmus he was made aware that the main count had been withdrawn but instead of considering the forfeiture order on the altered charge he ended up condemning Prophet on the main count which had been withdrawn by the prosecution and he arrived at his decision by saying that Prophet had imported a drug and he identified the drug as being phenylacetic acid.

Phenylacetic acid is not a drug and Prophet did not import it and worse than that the state had never even charged Prophet for importing a drug. This was an entirely new fabrication made up by Erasmus.

After the outcome of the civil trial the state, in the criminal trial, reverted back to charging Prophet under section 5(b) without realizing that Erasmus’s decision had been arrived at through a misunderstanding of the definitions of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. In a criminal court of law his argument is absurd because when applied to the manufacture of dagga it converts water and soil into drugs.

After Prophet was acquitted in the second criminal trial the Supreme Court of Appeal proclaimed Prophet’s criminal guilt under section 5(b) but admitted that it was not known if Prophet made a drug for his own use or for sale. This statement was added to suggest that there was an end use for the drug that was not found in a subtle way to imply that an end product did exist but the comment is unfounded and exists in the judgement to enforce through suggestion that there was an end product but there was no end product. No drugs or traces of drugs were produced in the forensic investigation and no urine samples were submitted and no end user was present to comment.

From the beginning, the charges against Prophet have been erratic because with the weirdness of the lack of evidence no one really knew what to charge him for. Even the investigating drug police officer with 14 years of experience with the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act has admitted in two different points in his testimony during the second criminal trial that he would not be able to charge a person for being in possession of the chemicals that the state is claiming were found in Prophet’s home. The transcripts are available for anyone who wants to read them.

Nothing illegal was found in Prophet’s home but he was condemned by the media before he had even appeared to hear formal charges in the 2nd criminal court but be that as it may, as an accused person his civil right to be informed of the charges with sufficient detail to answer them was clearly violated because the criminal charge against him moved like a chameleon from one court to the other.

Prophet had the civil right to have proceeded in his criminal trial without confusion and without delay. He was arrested in January 2001. In the second criminal trial he did not receive the last charge sheet until June 2004 which was a delay of three and a half years and this would have to be considered unreasonable when you take into account that the state had already sold his home in November 2003.

Prophet is innocent but civil forfeiture has promoted methamphetamine drug crimes!

If Prophet had been manufacturing methamphetamine secretly in his garage then he could never have achieved the public recognition for the promotion of illegal methamphetamine activity that has been achieved by the state and the courts through the forfeiture of 54 Balfour Street. The forfeiture of 54 Balfour Street has not been effective in combating the illegal use of methamphetamine and the public interest in terms of curbing this drug has not been served. The forfeiture of 54 Balfour Street has had exactly the opposite effect of what was supposed to have happened as was envisaged by the state.

Before the forfeiture of 54 Balfour Street, Prophet had had no contact with organized crime. Since the forfeiture of 54 Balfour Street he has been approached by organized crime syndicates to employ his services and to manufacture drugs for them. 

  One request has been for him to manufacture 25 000 units per week.  

In paragraph 9 of his affidavit submitted to the Constitutional Court, Westraad tells us that one unit of methamphetamine costs R40.

@ R40 per unit the weekly potential revenue is R1 000 000 which would put the projected annual revenue at 56 million rand and this represents the request coming from only one potential customer. Other requests were not of this magnitude but the next largest request was approximately half of this volume.

In the light of the offers that have been forthcoming to Prophet it should be clear that the financial loss of his home can easily be replaced if he turns to crime.

In terms of preventing organized crime the Prevention of Organized Crime Act has failed. The facts are there for all to see.

Prophet’s home has been forfeited and he has been evicted from his home and made homeless. The state seized his cars and furniture leaving him destitute in the street and, worst of all, the state has put his family in peril.

Who can he turn to for help?

Legal expenses and the loss of his only surviving asset (everything else has been sold to meet legal costs) has left him destitute and without dignity and under these conditions could there be greater incentive to get Prophet to engage with organized crime?

From this it can be shown that the Asset and Forfeiture Unit has done well in setting up the ground work to promote crime. Without realizing it the “do-gooders” have used 54 Balfour Street to cause methamphetamine to become the scourge that it now is and it would be a travesty to see Willie Hofmeyr profit from the sale of 54 Balfour Street.

The Asset and Forfeiture Unit sold Prophet’s home for R260 thousand but these figures pale in comparison with a projected annual income of R56 million per year from just one customer.

By turning to crime, Prophet can recover his losses within a few days.

In view of this it cannot be argued that the sacrifice of his life and his dignity can be justified through the argument that the Prevention of Organized Crime Act is effective in fighting the illegal use of methamphetamine because in reality, the Prevention of Organized Crime Act is actually promoting organized crime and this case has produced the statistics to prove that.

Prophet has been acquitted in a criminal court of law so he is an innocent man but in order to forfeit 54 Balfour Street the civil courts have had to say that he is guilty. In the above scenario there is no balance between the public interest and the individual’s civil right to dignity. “Everyone has inherent dignity” is a non-derogable supreme right.

The right to remain silent.

The Asset and Forfeiture Unit instigated a civil trial to force Prophet to talk during the proceedings of his criminal trial. Erasmus took Prophet’s home because Prophet did not say what he was doing with the chemicals and the judges in Bloemfontein used the same argument but as a man accused of a crime, Prophet did have the right to withhold that information until an appropriate time in his criminal trial.

Erasmus openly violates the Constitution (see volume 7, page 578, line 20) when he says “…no good grounds have been made out for suspending the civil proceedings.”  The entire civil trial was prohibited because of Prophet’s non-derogable right to silence. Prophet filed a “comprehensive answering affidavit” through the advice of his legal team. At the time Prophet was not acquainted with the supreme law and he may not have understood what his civil rights were but Erasmus is going to have a hard time convincing the literate that section 35(3) (h) is not “good grounds…for suspending the civil proceedings” or that it is not a non-derogable supreme law.

Prophet's criminal trial had been concluded before the day of the hearing in Bloemfontein but it must be pointed out that the civil trial itself was constitutionally illegal because it commenced during the proceedings of his criminal trial in violation of his right to presumption of innocence and in violation of his right to silence and in violation of his right to not testify during the proceedings of Prophet’s criminal trial.

There are no special circumstances that tolerate the violation of an accused person’s rights to silence before his criminal trial or until it is time for him to testify in his criminal trial because this right is a non-derogable supreme right. Furthermore it is one of the rights within the Bill of Rights that appears twice and both times it appears as a non-derogable supreme right; see section 35(1) (a) and section 35(3) (h). Whoever wrote section 35 obviously attached great importance to the right to remain silent.

By making Prophet afraid that he would loose his home if he didn’t talk, the state was trying to force him to reveal the strategy of his defence that he was preparing for his criminal case and because he didn’t talk he is loosing his home. There is little difference between this and pulling out his fingernails to get him to talk because both actions rely on fear and suffering which is torture; see section 12(1) (d) is a non-derogable supreme law.

When Prophet was arrested he was confused and terrified. He may have committed a crime because his life is unusual to say the least but he should have been given a fair opportunity to answer to the allegations without first being made homeless.

Public interest and the right of equality before the law

Is the public interest being served when the state turns to crime to fight crime? Is an accused man or woman equal before the law if judges can examine evidence against the accused that was obtained through the organized criminal action of the state and which has been declared “inadmissible” by a magistrate? Section 35(5) is a non-derogable supreme right “with respect to the exclusion of that evidence if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair”. See table of non-derogable supreme rights. Two different criminal courts of law determined the same search warrant that was used to enter Prophet’s home to be invalid. The search and the seizure were consequently illegal. There is no other way to interpret these facts.

Through a misunderstanding of the definitions of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and because he did not hear proper testimony and cross examination of evidence, Erasmus made further inroads into Prophet’s right to a fair criminal trial by falsely declaring in paragraph 12 of his judgment that Prophet had imported a drug.

The Prevention of Organized Crime Act is unconscious of criminal law and laughs at the principles and intentions of section 35. There are 31 sections of non-derogable rights in the Bill of Rights and 20 of those are found in section 35. By circumventing the entire criminal justice system, the Prevention of Organized Crime Act violates the civil rights of every accused man or woman and makes a mockery of “innocent until proven guilty”.

The good of the cause versus collateral damage

Have the illegal sales of methamphetamine in the Western Cape declined since the people who lived at 54 Balfour Street have been thrown into the street?

The forfeiture of 54 Balfour Street has only raised the general levels of suffering of ordinary people and has produced bitterness and resentment towards the state and the system. The state has used unsubstantiated arguments to justify forfeiture under the disguise of crime prevention but the true agenda of the Prevention of Crime Act is insidious to the extreme.

For those who have the eyes to see and the ears to hear then here is the real and true agenda of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act:

In order to succeed, tyranny must present itself to a free society in increments so that by the time you realize what is happening then it’s already too late. Before the day is too late the Prevention of Organized Crime Act must be seen for what it is. Civil asset forfeiture is not preventing crime and is covertly the beginning part of an elaborate mind control plot to end private ownership of land.

The state is using the Prevention of Organized Crime Act to introduce a mind acceptance game that gives power to the state to decide who may or may not own land. 

That is what this is about but this is only the beginning. 

To where will South Africa's acceptance of such state power lead ultimately when it will continue to be expanded?

The opportunity to own land can only be decided by a willing buyer and a willing seller. The role of government is to protect the interest of both parties in a manner that is fair.

When the role of government serves to overpower and completely ignor the interest of the buyer or the seller then we are in a dictatorship and then there is no requirment for a Constitution or a Bill of Rights.

Equal before the law

The state has impoverished Prophet.

Section 25 of the South African Bill of Rights expressly forbids civil asset forfeiture and this website uses the case history of Simon Prophet to reveal the extent to which the South African Justice Department has been seduced into openly violating Constitutional law and common law.

The right to own land and to retain the ownership of that land is fundamental to a free society. In the absence of private ownership then the notion of individual freedom cannot begin to exist. 

A basic home is not a privilege. It is the consequence of natural law. Entities who tamper with such law do not have the wellbeing of people or communities at heart and should not be listened to in court rooms.

Individual freedom and personal sovereignty depend largely on the unalienable right for individuals to own their own home so this right must be protected at all costs.

With unlimited resources and awesome power the state, the Cape Town High Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, the Constitutional Court, the judge who signed an order for Prophet to be evicted from his home and the media have unconstitutionally dragged Prophet into a dirty gutter.

Prophet stands alone, a simple man, in the midst of a ferocious beast but we must all concur that according to section 9(1) of the Bill of Rights, Prophet is equal before the law and he has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. According to section 25 of the Constitution, "no one may be deprived of property" and “no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.”  

Violent state seizure of private property in the face of a “not guilty” criminal court verdict can only be interpreted as “arbitrary deprivation of property” and there is no other way but to interpret any such action as unconstitutional because it is clearly “inconsistent” with dozens of laws within the Constitution.

Prophet’s battle is to keep what belongs to him and his victory in this quest means that the civil right of every citizen to own and retain private property is going to be protected. 

Your right and everyone else's right to own property is a supreme law but it is also a fundamental natural law and it is your duty and everyone's duty to protect the property rights of our children that they never live in the fear that one day their lands will be seized neither through corrupt and lying politicians nor through a justice system gone bad.

HOME