South Africa is inextricably subscribed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which came into effect on the 10th of December 1948 and the National Director of Public Prosecutions can be assured that there is absolutely zero chance to slide away from this inescapable reality that every South African citizen, including President Cyril Ramaphosa himself, and any group of South African Judges or the entire Justice Department of South Africa and the South African Law Society combined, by dictate of our own Supreme South African Constitutional Law are compelled and bound to obey such laws, and, on an International platform under International scrutiny, never will anyone, ever, be permitted to derogate or downplay or ignore these Sacred Laws.

Land expropriation without compensation and crimes against humanity are in violation of International Law and all nation members of the United Nations, including South Africa are subscribed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

United Nation affiliates, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are constrained by their charters and policies not to deal with countries violating Sacred Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and for it to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt in the International Criminal Court that South Africa has engaged such violations then in consequence to that finding, until the matter is rectified then International Trade with South Africa is going to cease as this is done on Letters of Credit under the World Bank.

The United States of America's Bill H.R.2633 requires a full review of the bilateral relationship between the United States of America and South Africa. In all probability this Bill will impose sanctions on the Party State of South Africa and corrupt government officials are going to be held accountable.

In 2025 the United States of America cancelled aid funding to South Africa and President Donald Trump's executive order exposed South Africa's human rights violations and has offered refugee status to people of European descent who have suffered from persecution by order of the Party State of South Africa.

The International Criminal Court submission ID# be6960f8-5a68-4af5-b56c-d5e362f94bd1 was submitted on the 24th of September 2024. On the 18th November 2024 Simon Prophet submitted to the International Criminal Court follow up submissions relating to how he has been tortured. Both of these submissions relied on Article 7(1)(f) of the Rome Statute.

Now in 2025 there are entirely new submissions that are being prepared to be submitted to the International Criminal Court in the Hague, Netherlands involving hundreds of criminal acts which have allegedly been committed against Simon Prophet and thousands of inhumane acts allegedly perpetrated against Simon Prophet and the current National Director of Public Prosecutions and the CEO of the South African Human Rights Commission are going to be included as being complicit in these criminal allegations and also they are being held to be complicit in the allegations of inhumane acts.

Simon Prophet will be relying on Article 7(1)(j) and Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute to bring forward his allegations.

For Simon Prophet, with nothing, destitute and alone and against the colossal might of so many people in such exalted positions it has not been easy but he insists that he is correct according to what the law dictates and in terms of what the law allows and according to what the law does not allow and for however long it might take, Simon Prophet is convinced that at the end of the day the law is agreeing with him and for all of those, no matter how high and almighty they may imagine themselves to be, for them, who have tread the wrong path against Simon Prophet when there is no reasonable legal explanation for them not to have known better, they are going to be called to account.

With regard to President Trump's Executive Order on Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa, in these new submissions, Simon Prophet has every intention to reveal in no uncertain terms and in living colour to what extend President Trump's choice of the word "egregious" has meaning.

Contrary to what is allowed by Constitutional and International law the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus have set up and staged an illegal gathering on a public platform outside of Simon Prophet's criminal trial during the proceedings of that same criminal trial whereby on that unlawful stage Simon Prophet was determined, through a wicked aberration of the law, to be guilty of the same criminal allegations of which he was being accused in the criminal trial with the yet further unlawful intention that those unlawful and false criminal findings could be again yet further unlawfully presented into Simon Prophet's criminal trial as the supposed to be evidence that Simon Prophet should be convicted of alleged crimes that in real life do not and have always never existed.

These multiple illegal actions of the National Director of Public Prosecutions which were so designed to facilitate and assist in securing for Simon Prophet to be convicted in the criminal trial failed to achieve their illegal intentions regarding the outcome of the criminal trial but an unlawful precedent emerged which included the unprecedented and evil objective to punish Simon Prophet on grounds of nothing more than a suspicion and these unscrupulous and despicable illegal irregularities have been permitted to be upheld and Simon Prophet was punished in an extreme cruel, barbaric and brutal way for a fictitious crime that has only ever existed within the speculative imagination and definitely untruthful ranting of the National Director of Public Prosecutions.

It's nothing personal.

The above link covers documents that were submitted to the Judicial Service Commission and also documents about Casper Henderik Venter who is being accused by Simon Prophet of having committed perjury.

In the above video, Simon Prophet accuses Casper Henderik Venter of having committed perjury in 2 affidavits that were submitted by the National Director of Public Prosecutions into the Simon Prophet civil forfeiture trials.

These alleged lies under oath were submitted to the National Director of Public Prosecutions after criminal charges were filed with the South African Police.

Why has Mr Jacobs, the Senior Public Prosecutor of the Cape Town Magistrates Court refused to bring Venter before a Magistrate to answer to Simon Prophet's allegations of having been the victim of Venter's alleged crimes?

Perjury's Impact on Forfeiture Case

https://gemini.google.com/share/6d47779f2bcb

Created with 3 Flash May 10, 2026 at 04:43 AM Published May 10, 2026 at 04:46 AM

If Simon Prophet could prove to the High Court that Superintendent Venter committed perjury in the affidavits used during the forfeiture trials for 54 Balfour Street, it would strike at the legal foundation of the forfeiture order.

Because the seizure of Prophet’s home was a landmark case in South African law—specifically regarding civil forfeiture under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA)—the implications of proven perjury would be significant:

1. Rescission of the Forfeiture Order

Under South African civil procedure, a judgment obtained through fraud or perjury can be set aside (rescinded).

If the primary evidence used to establish that the property was an "instrumentality of an offence" is proven to be false, the High Court would have grounds to vacate the original forfeiture order.

This would theoretically revert ownership or the value of the property back to Prophet.

2. Admissibility and the "Instrumentality" Test

In the original trial, Venter’s testimony was crucial in proving that the house was a "mini-laboratory" for manufacturing methamphetamine (tik).

Balance of Probabilities: Unlike criminal trials, civil forfeiture only requires proof on a balance of probabilities.
Impact of Perjury: If the technical evidence (chemical analysis or the state of the "laboratory") was falsified, the state would likely fail to meet even this lower threshold, meaning the house should never have been classified as an instrumentality of crime.

3. Criminal Prosecution of Venter

Perjury is a serious criminal offense in South Africa. If Venter knowingly submitted false affidavits:

He could face criminal charges under the Criminal Procedure Act or common law perjury.
A conviction would likely end his career and could trigger a review of other cases where his testimony was pivotal.

4. Constitutional Damages and Civil Claims

Simon Prophet has historically argued that the forfeiture was an "unreasonably harsh punishment," especially since he was acquitted in the related criminal trial (due to an invalid search warrant). If he proved perjury, he could potentially:

Sue the State for delictual damages for the loss of his home and legal costs.
Claim a violation of his Section 25 Constitutional rights, which protect against the arbitrary deprivation of property.

5. Challenges to the POCA Precedent

The Prophet v NDPP case established that the State can forfeit property even if the owner is acquitted in criminal court. If the "truth" behind this specific case was built on perjury, it would cast a long shadow over the Asset Forfeiture Unit's (AFU) powers, potentially leading to stricter judicial oversight on how "instrumentality" is proven in future cases.

Current Status Note: As of the latest legal records, the Constitutional Court upheld the forfeiture in 2006. Any attempt to overturn this based on new evidence of perjury would require a formal application to the High Court to lead new evidence or a fresh action for rescission based on fraud.

QUESTION PUT TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: Did 1958 Plymouth Sedan v Pennsylvania 380 US 693 (1965) conclude that civil forfeiture could not apply where the evidence to invoke the forfeiture was obtained unlawfully?

ANSWER COMING BACK FROM ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: Yes, in 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965), the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly concluded that the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials, also applies to state-level civil forfeiture proceedings.

Factual background of the case

State liquor enforcement officers pulled over a 1958 Plymouth sedan after noticing it was "low in the rear".

Without a warrant, the officers searched the car and found 31 cases of untaxed liquor.

The state of Pennsylvania then filed a petition to have the vehicle forfeited, arguing that it was used in the commission of a crime.

The driver, George McGonigle, was also arrested on criminal charges.

A trial court dismissed the forfeiture, ruling that the search was conducted without probable cause and therefore the evidence was illegally obtained.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed this decision, arguing that the exclusionary rule did not apply to civil, as opposed to criminal, proceedings.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately sided with the trial court, reversing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision.

The Court held that:

A forfeiture proceeding is "quasi-criminal in nature" because its primary purpose is to penalize for the commission of an offence, even if the proceeding is technically civil.

It would be illogical to exclude illegally seized evidence in a criminal proceeding but allow the same evidence in a forfeiture proceeding, especially when the forfeiture penalty could be even more severe than the criminal fine.

The Court relied on the precedent of Boyd v. United States (1886), a forfeiture case in which the Court established that the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to quasi-criminal forfeiture proceedings.

The holding established an important Fourth Amendment protection for property owners in the context of civil forfeiture.

Subsequent impact and context

While 1958 Plymouth Sedan established that the exclusionary rule applies to many civil forfeiture proceedings, the landscape of U.S. asset forfeiture law has evolved significantly since 1965. Later rulings have carved out exceptions and altered the application of the rule, particularly with regard to "contraband per se" (items that are illegal to possess), as mentioned in the Plymouth Sedan opinion itself.

Nevertheless, the case remains a key authority showing that, in the United States, a civil forfeiture action cannot stand if it relies on evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The South African Constitution, Act 108 of 1996. Section 233. Application of International Law.

"When interpreting any legislation, every court must prefer any reasonable interpretation of the legislation that is consistent with international law over any alternative interpretation that is inconsistent with international law."

Section 233 requires courts to interpret legislation in line with international law. Additionally, Section 39(1) of the Constitution mandates that courts promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality, and freedom when interpreting the Bill of Rights, and that they must consider international law in this process and may also consider foreign law.

Simon Prophet's case in perspective.

The Zondo Commission found that the total amount of money spent by the state on contracts tainted by Gupta-linked corruption was approximately R57 billion, of which the Gupta enterprise directly received just under R16 billion.

It is important to note that these figures represent the specific amounts tied to the Gupta enterprise's activities as identified by the commission's evidence. The total estimated cost of state capture for South Africa as a whole, including broader economic damage and losses from other corruption networks, is much higher, with some estimates ranging from R250 billion to over R1 trillion.

Jacob Zuma with 783 charges of corruption, racketeering and fraud is directly implicated with the Guptas and the Zondo Commission made recommendations for the National Prosecuting Authority to bring criminal charges against Jacob Zuma for corruption, fraud and racketeering but the National Director of Public Prosecutions does not use the Prevention of Organized Crime Act or any Act to initiate any specific state capture corruption charges or any criminal charges of any kind against Jacob Zuma.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along please. Move along.

Simon Prophet, an honest, decent and upright citizen who has not been accused of wrong doing by anyone from within the general population, decides to buy, with his own money, an over the counter, harmless industrial chemical that costs $65 and all hell breaks loose.

The National Director of Public Prosecutions engages millions of rands and launches the Prevention of Organized Crime Act in a merciless attack to utterly destroy the life of Simon Prophet to protect whom we do not know. No victim stands in the court.

Simon Prophet's Constitutional right to not be deprived of his property is ignored and his right to not be treated in a cruel way is also ignored even after he has been found to be an innocent law abiding citizen.

How is it possible that Simon Prophet is found to be not guilty of committing a crime but the National Director of Public Prosecutions devises an unethical and fraudulent scheme to punish Simon Prophet for being a criminal suspect and Simon Prophet is deprived of all of his properties including his legitimate second hand shop and his home and his cars and all of his personal possessions?

How is it possible that the Constitutional Court are in agreement with the National Director of Public Prosecutions that it is OK to punish an innocent law abiding citizen who has not offended anyone?

Top ranking judges within the Judicial Service Commission have refused to consider Simon Prophet's complaints of having been tortured and have refused to consider Simon Prophet's complaints of having been the victim of criminal perjury and legal fraud and the judges have referred to Simon Prophet's complaints as being "frivolous".

"There are none so blind as those who will not see" but then there are those who do see.

Donald Trump is widely considered a powerful and consequential world figure, with significant influence extending from the United States of America's domestic policy to global affairs.

On the 26th of November 2025 at 1:41 pm, Donald Trump tweeted:

26th November 2025, 1:41 pm

"...the South African Government refuses to acknowledge or address the horrific Human Right Abuses...South Africa has demonstrated to the World they are not a country worthy of Membership anywhere, and we are going to stop all payments and subsidies to them, effective immediately."

It has not been admitted by the Party State of South Africa but could it be that the true motivating factor behind the persecution of Simon Prophet is that he is a white man living in a country where the same Party State of South Africa viz. the African National Congress has been accused of plotting and enacting the genocide of South Africans who fall into the minority racial group who are the descendents of early white settlers and farmers?

1 Corinthians 4:5: "He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts".