No illegal drugs were uncovered by
the unlawful search of Prophet's home and outside of Venter's imagination, nothing
unlawful was shown to exist.
Before
reading Venter's affidavit It is important to take cognisance of
various factors.
First to
consider is that prior to Venter signing his affidavit is that
Venter was unlawfully inside Prophet's home. Venter was not
there on any permission granted by Prophet.
Given the opportunity then,
Prophet would have definitely denied Venter any permission or
any right to have entered into Prophet's property in the way that
Venter did.
Venter was
not a guest in Prophet's home.
Venter was
trespassing unlawfully on Prophet's property.
Prophet may
have allowed Venter to enter into his garage sale business at
any reasonable time and look around at the stock and to buy
anything that was for sale and Prophet would have had no problem
chatting to Venter about any subject but under absolutely no
circumstances would Prophet have allowed Venter to scratch
through any of his bedroom cupboards, the drawers of his office
desk, or to
look at or to examine any of the things in Prophet's security
safes or to scrounge through Prophet's personal records, his
private diaries or anything like that.
Everything
changes when there is a realization and an admittance that
from the very start for Venter to have entered into Prophet's
private home was an act of breaking the law.
Venter can
plead ignorance that he did not know that he was trespassing and he can try to deny
that he was breaking the law but the findings by Magistrate le
Roux in the criminal trial court case number 16/236/03 are
conclusive and final and there is no backing out of these facts.
Venter had
every opportunity to approach Prophet while Prophet was
operating his second hand business in the garage on the same
property and make any civilized enquires about anything but this
is not what Venter did.
Venter with
his drug police colleagues used violent aggression to smash their way into
Prophet's home causing damage that at the time amounted to more
than R5 000 and all of that was completely unnecessary, uncalled
for and unwanted and illegal.
Let us not
make any mistake about this. The presence of Venter in Prophet's
home was illegal. How Venter gained access into Prophet's home
was also illegal and neither Venter nor his drug police
colleagues have ever been held accountable for the destruction
and damage that was committed by them to Prophet's properties.
The second
hurdle to consider is that this affidavit of Venter's was
not submitted into Prophet's criminal trial.
This
affidavit found its way onto a platform outside of Prophet's
criminal trial.
For this to
have been done was a local and an international unlawful act.
As an accused
person, at the time, Prophet was awaiting the criminal trial and
by submitting this affidavit onto a platform in such a way as it
was presented was to make a public presumption of guilt and not
only that, Venter's affidavit went beyond every legal limit in
that Venter's affidavit was making a public
proclamation that Prophet was guilty of the crimes of which he
had been accused.
To have done
the above is for Venter to have broken the law of presumption of
innocence and this is a violation of a non derogable
Constitutional law.
It goes
without saying that Venter was also violating all of the
sections under Section 14 of the Constitution in that Prophet's
right to privacy is a supreme law and it has been established as
a fact beyond a reasonable doubt via the court findings of Cape
Town Magistrate Court criminal case number 16/79/01 and also by
the court findings and the court order of the Cape Town
Magistrate Court criminal trial case number 16/236/03 that this
is what Venter and all of his drug police colleagues were doing.
Prophet is
accusing Venter of breaking the law by having committed perjury
and this may or may not be true but from what is evident from
the facts as they are presented above then none of this is of
any help in Venter's defence.
Venter is not
above the law.
Apart from
the proven Constitutional unlawful acts committed by Venter
which have been established as facts beyond a reasonable doubt,
as explained above there is yet another unlawful act to consider
and that is that the presentation of this affidavit as well as
the affidavit known as the "False Formula" affidavit,
these two affidavits, having been presented in the High Court of
Cape Town, was an act of contempt of court in that the ruling of
Magistrate le Roux forbade any such presentations from the drug
police on account of the search warrant having been declared
unlawful.
These acts of
contempt of court did not end with the Cape Town High Court and
the acts of contempt continued as the affidavits were presented
to the Supreme Court of Appeal and to the Constitutional Court.
The Judges in
the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Judges of the Constitutional
Court can argue and make claims that this information about
Venter's affidavits being in contempt of a court order was
unknown to the civil courts but any such claims will be in vain.
The criminal
transcripts of the second criminal trial were submitted by
Prophet into the Constitutional Court and so the opportunity was
afforded for the civil courts to acquaint themselves with the
facts but the court would not allow the submission.
Since
Prophet's evidence was denied then we are left to ask on what
basis could the civil court judges arrive at any derogatory
conclusion about le Roux's findings especially so since le
Roux's finding were rejected and were denied to be presented as
evidence?
Only fools
make comments about something that they have never looked at.
In his
replying affidavit to the Supreme Court of Appeal, Prophet did
make mention of court case number 16/79/01 where
Magistrate Matthews also declared the search warrant as invalid.
Are the civil
court judges also going to reject the findings of Magistrate
Matthews without knowing any of the facts that led up to that
finding?
As the
covered up and swept under the carpet facts start to be
unravelled and to become known then the picture begins to emerge
that the forfeiture of Prophet's properties and the destruction
of his dignity can only be interpreted as a miscarriage of
justice.
It's not that
Prophet was wrongly found guilty and from that wrongful verdict
he was made to suffer a terrible punishment.
NO.
Prophet was
found to be innocent and after having been found to be innocent
he was made to suffer a terrible punishment which he is still
suffering to this day and continues to suffer even though he was
found to be innocent.
This has to
be repeated time and time again because it's difficult for
ordinary law abiding people to fathom and to grasp what actually
has taken place in the forfeiture of Prophet's home.
In the world
history of law this may be the only time that such has ever
happened.
It goes
against every foundation of the law and justice and it is
incredulous that such could have happened but it did.
But criminal
case number 1438/3/2023 is not about the forfeiture of Prophet's
home. Case number 1438/3/2023 is about did Venter tell lies
under oath?
Yes or no?
In arriving
at an answer to the question at hand it is relevant and
important to be aware of and to be in knowledge of how Venter's
affidavits have played out beyond the confines of Venter's
affidavits themselves.
Before even
beginning to read Venter's "Impossible Volume" affidavit
all of the above must be borne in mind.
The above
does nothing to protect Venter from Prophet's charge that Venter
has committed perjury.
The above
only gives credence and credibility to Prophet's charge that
Venter has committed more than just one criminal act.
Of course
Venter has the right to presumption of innocence and Venter has
the right to defend himself against Prophet's charges but at the
same time Prophet has the right to dignity and on that basis,
Prophet has every right to bring Venter before a Magistrate to
answer to Prophet's charges and no one may stand in the way of
Prophet for Prophet to set the record straight and a criminal
court room is the only fair place for both Venter and Prophet
for this to take place.