Yes.

Perjury is a criminal offence and what follows below is Simon Prophet's affidavit submitted to the South African Police in March of 2023 accusing Casper Henderik Venter of having committed perjury.

Venter submitted two affidavits to the Cape Town High Court and these two affidavits travelled from one court to the next ending up in the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg.

These affidavits have been used by the National Director of Public Prosecutions to persuade the courts to arrive at wrong conclusions about Simon Prophet and to ruin Simon Prophet's life.

Prophet has shown to the courts that these affidavits are not true and that they are misleading but to no avail.

The presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence is contained in international and regional instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 14[2]), the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Article XXVI), the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 8[2]), the African Charter on Human and Peoplesí Rights (Article 7[b]), and the Arab Charter on Human Rights (Article 16). It is also found in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Rule 84[2]).

Guilt cannot be presumed before the prosecution proves a charge beyond reasonable doubt, and this principle applies until the judgment is made final as defined in Article 266 of the MCCP.

There are a number of ways in which the presumption of innocence can be protected. First, according to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the presumption is breached where public officials prejudge the outcome of a trial (General Comment no. 13, paragraph 7).

Public officials include judges, prosecutors, the police, and government officials, all of whom must avoid making public statements of the guilt of an individual prior to a conviction or after an acquittal. It is permissible, however, for the authorities to inform the public of the name of a suspect and that the person has been arrested or has made a confession, as long as the person is not publicly declared guilty (see the European Court of Human Rights case of Worm v. Austria, application no. 83/1996/702/894 [August 29, 1997], paragraph 52).

Even in the absence of the South African Constitution and even before the South African Constitution came into existence, how much more clear can it be to show that there are age old powerful laws that are in place to protect the dignity of persons accused of crime?

Venter's affidavits condemned Prophet to be a criminal while Prophet was on trial and were submitted onto different platforms outside of Prophet's criminal trial during the proceedings of Prophet's criminal trial and also found their way onto other different platforms after Prophet had been acquitted of criminal wrong doing.

By submitting his affidavits into the civil trials, taking into account all of the circumstances, what was said, when and how, then Venter has engaged to violate numerous non derogable laws.

Prophet bears no grudges but it's time to set the record straight and it seems that the only way that can be achieved is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Venter has lied under oath.

Casper Henderik Venter

Venter's lies will continue ad infinitum until something drastic is done to put an end to his lies and this is why criminal charges have been opened against Venter.

Prophet has the right to dignity and he has the right be protected from criminal attacks on his person.

In desperation from these assaults on his dignity Prophet has finally approached the South African Police for their protection.

Prophet makes bold claims in his affidavit that Venter has commissioned criminal acts and Venter has the absolute right to presumption of innocence to the same degree that Prophet was supposed to have been presumed innocent.

Standing side by side, in Venter's claim of wrong doing on the part of Prophet, Venter has never represented himself as a victim of anything that Prophet is supposed to have done wrong nor has Venter ever represented anyone else as being a victim of Prophet's alleged crime.

In Venter's criminal claims against Prophet there are no members of the general public who have come forward proclaiming to have been victims of any alleged wrong doing on the part of Prophet. No victim stands before the police. No victim stands before the court.

Venter's criminal claims against Prophet take place in the absence of a complaint and in the absence of a crime in a time frame when Prophet was facing criminal charges.

Now next to Venter's claims, in stark contrast, Prophet's charge against Venter is alarmingly different because Prophet is the victim of Venter's alleged criminal acts and Prophet can show how his life has been ruined.

Therefore, it follows to a considerable degree that Prophet is entitled to proclaim that Venter is a criminal and, as the victim, it is also Prophet's fundamental civil right to be given the opportunity to testify before a magistrate.

If it turns out that Prophet is telling lies about Venter then Venter can take that up in a civil action against Prophet.

Prophet's affidavit follows below.