Prophet was arrested on Wednesday the 31st of January 2001.

On the same day, Wednesday the 31st of January 2001, the SABC on National TV during prime time newsreels on SABC 1 and SABC 2 broadcast film footage of Prophet outside his home with commentary about Prophet being a drug dealer.

Also on Wednesday and Thursday the SABC was broadcasting over all the radio stations in the news every hour that Prophet was guilty.

Prophet did not appear in court to hear formal charges until Friday the 2nd February 2001.

On Thursday the 1st February 2001, a day before Prophet appeared in court to formally hear the criminal charges, Media 24 published a newspaper article in the Cape Times proclaiming, not in so many words, but enough to leave the reader with a firm believe that Prophet was a drug dealer.

So Prophet was condemned by the Media as being guilty one and two days before Prophet had been officially informed of the charges.

According to Johan Schronen, in his published newspaper article above, the narcotic squad acting chief, Riaan Redelinghuys, makes a claim that "We found enough chemicals to produce about 1kg which works out to at least R700 000."

The Redelinghuys claim of 1kg contradicts and disagrees with Venter's claim of between 400 and 600 grams.

On a side issue, when considering the numbers being presented by these two policemen we can make some deductions which raise alarm bells that warn us that the figures are not true.

According to Venter, the value of the chemicals found was R2 000 so between Venter and Redelinghuys, when we do the arithmetic, then R2000 of chemicals can produce R700 000 of drugs which cannot be believed it being nothing more than a nonsense made up story.

The Redelinghuys claim also contradicts and disagrees with Smit's claim of R250 000.

It also important to mention here that no drugs were found during the unlawful search. Smit is not calculating the value of any drug that was found. Smit is calculating the value of a drug that exists only in the imagination of his colleague, Casper Venter.

Who are we to believe or are they all telling lies and they just botched up because the one liar jumped ahead of the other liar without thinking?

The figures being presented above can all easily be confirmed from printed newspaper archives and documents submitted into the courts.

These verifiably untrue, insane and contradicting claims were accepted by the civil courts as being true.

Whether true or false all of the above is in violation of Constitutional law and International law in that these statements, publications and broadcasts from the SABC, Media 24, Johan Schronen, Redelinghuys, Venter and Smit are all violating Prophet's right to presumption of innocence.

A diligent study from Venter's own submissions, without Venter realizing it, reveals that no drugs could have been made from the chemicals found. No drugs, no money, no gang members, no link to criminal syndicates, not even one gang member connection, no telephone numbers linking Prophet to shady characters, no witnesses, no complaints and not even any rumour of wrong doing but Prophet gets to be condemned before he appears in court.

The right to presumption of innocence is non derogable but "trial by media" made sure that in Prophet's case this law did not see the light of day.

Below Annex V3 is a copy of an extract from Johan Smit's affidavit to the Cape Town High Court which reveals how Smit used Venter's lies to leave the reader with false conclusions about Prophet.

It's also important to make note that these untruths being presented by Smit about R250 000 were not being presented in the criminal trial.

The untruths were being presented on a platform outside of Prophet's criminal trial during the proceedings of that trial, which is not allowed by Constitutional law.

The law is clear on this point.

Public officials include judges, prosecutors, the police, including Riaan Redelinghuys, including Casper Henderik Venter, and including Johan Smit and all the government officials who participated in the civil trials to deprive Prophet of his home, including Johan Schronen and Media 24, all of whom must avoid making public statements of the guilt of an individual prior to a conviction or after an acquittal.

The right to presumption of innocence is non derogable. According to the Constitution there exist no grounds in Prophet's case that this law could have been derogated but Prophet's civil trial played out as though this law and how many other non derogable laws never existed?

However this is not about civil law.

This is about criminal law.

Did Venter tell a lie under oath?

Yes or No?