|
Simon Prophet's criminal allegations of having been tortured were submitted to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court on the 24th of September 2024. |
|
|
|
|
|
What follows below is the "icc -torture complaint" pdf which has been submitted to the International Criminal Court and includes paragraph 1 to paragraph 159 which is accompanied by 6 annexes. |
|
Paragraph 1: I, Simon Prophet, accuse the following people of torturing me:
Bulelani Ngcuka, Vusi Pikoli and all those persons who were each and all at various times the National Director of Public Prosecutions, during my terrible ordeals and they who played crucial roles in torturing me by seeking out ways to punish me for an act that I was suspected of having committed outside of and away from my criminal trials in a manner that ignores the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that is diametrically opposed to lawful criminal law procedure.
NC Erasmus tortured me in a civil matter in the High Court of Cape Town (Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division) case number 5926/01 when he ruled to punish me for an act I was suspected of having committed.
Paragraph 2: I ask the Prosecutor to arrest these people and bring them before the International Criminal Court and charge them according to my allegations.
Paragraph 3: “Torture” is defined by the Rome Statute as a crime against humanity and falls within the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Paragraph 4: Part 2 Article 5(b) of the Rome Statute; crimes against humanity: Part 2 Article 7(1)(f) torture. Part 2 Article (7)(2)(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused.”
Paragraph 5: The Implimentation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 commenced in South Africa in 2002 “to provide a frame work to ensure the effective implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in South Africa.”
Paragraph 6: Section 5(1) of Act 27 of 2002 states “No prosecution may be instituted against a person accused of having committed a crime without the consent of the National Director” but here is a conflict of interest because I am the victim of the National Director.
Paragraph 7: In the years of 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 the National Directors of Public Prosecutions at that time are one and all being accused by me of having tortured me or having been complicit in those crimes.
Paragraph 8: The current National Director of Public Prosecutions, Shamila Batoh, is denying that I have been tortured.
Paragraph 9: The current National Director of Public Prosecutions is not going to institute a proceeding of criminal allegation against her predecessor or herself for being complicit.
Paragraph 10: On the 29th of March 2023 I initiated criminal charges of perjury against Casper Hendrik Venter to the Cape Town Central Police Station criminal case docket number 1438/3/2023 wherein I alleged that Venter had lied about me in 2 affidavits.
Paragraph 11: These 2 affidavits in paragraph 10 are the same 2 affidavits that the National Director of Public Prosecutions submitted in 2002 into the trial of Erasmus High Court case number 5926/01.
Paragraph 12: On the 4th January 2024, I was present when the police submitted my charges against Venter to the Senior Public Prosecutor of the Cape Town Magistrate's Court, Mr Jacobs who refused to bring the matter to court.
Paragraph 13: In a matter that I brought before the Cape Town High Court, Simon Prophet verse the National Director of Public Prosecutions case number 5922/22 therein I have explained in detail to the National Director of Public Prosecutions exactly how these lies of Venter have been used by the National Director of Public Prosecutions to unlawfully lead people into believing that I am a criminal.
Paragraph 14: As a lay person battling as best I could within the legal system without legal assistance which is impossible for me to afford, I am unable to fathom how that case number 5922/22 is now mysteriously representing a different matter.
Paragraph 15: All of the documents mention in paragraph 13 with the original Court stamps are available on request and on one of those documents I also have the original signature of the Register of the Court, Nicola Hannekom. I also have receipts of delivery from the Sheriff's office so there can be no doubt as to the existence of the documents.
Paragraph 16: With regard to corruption, in 2023, Transparency International has placed South Africa at position 83 out of 180 countries which is a consideration that there will be negative impacts for anyone trying to bring to book authoritarian irregularities.
Paragraph 17: With regard to crime, South Africa has the world's 3rd (third) highest crime ranking according to World Population Review.
Paragraph 18: On the 28th of September 2007, when I was forcefully removed from my home in handcuffs, the National Director of Public Prosecutions, seized all of my assets. (SEE ANNEX 1 - LOSS OF AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY)
Paragraph 19: The only fixed income that I have is a social pension grant of 100 Eros per month and now, at seventy years of age, as a pauper, then no country will accept me and I have no option but to remain in South Africa.
Paragraph 20: In June 2015 the African National Congress government of South Africa has revealed its true colours by openly and unashamedly demonstrating its disregard for International Law when, in contempt of an order from the International Criminal Court, South Africa deliberately failed to arrest visiting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir whom the International Criminal Court had convicted for crimes of genocide.
Paragraph 21: From my experience, after having protested and appealed to the highest places in South Africa without success, I already know for a fact that I will not get a fair hearing anywhere in South Africa.
Paragraph 22: Bearing in mind the above I plead for the Prosecutor to bypass the National Director of Public Prosecutions and to bring my allegations directly to the head quarters of the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
Paragraph 23: I was arrested by the South African Police on the 31st of January 2001 and I was put under the control of the National Director of Public Prosecutions. My bail conditions required for me to pay to the Cape Town Magistrate's Court R20 000. My passport was confiscated and I was detained and I was not permitted to go beyond the boundaries of the municipal district of Cape Town and I was compelled to sign every day Monday through to Sunday between the hours of 17h00 and 19h00 at the Woodstock Police Station. Failing to meet any one of these conditions would result in me being arrested and incarcerated.
Paragraph 24: I was released from the control of the National Director of Public Prosecutions when I was acquitted of the criminal charges on the 8th of April 2005 when Magistrate Le Roux told me that I was free to go. (SEE TOP OF PAGE 181 OF ANNEX 5)
Paragraph 25: Article 12 of the Rome Statute. Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction “1. A State which becomes a Party to this Statute thereby accepts the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in article 5.”
Paragraph 26: On the 17th July 1998, South Africa signed the Rome Statute which means that South Africa and the National Directors of Public Prosecutions meet the preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction and South Africa has accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court with respect to “torture”.
Paragraph 27: When Vladimir Putin was to host the August 2023 BRICS summit in South Africa then the African National Congress government of South Africa made an unsuccessful attempt to disengage from the Rome Statute in order not to have to arrest Putin for whom there was a warrant out for his arrest.
Paragraph 28: Article 15(1) of the Rome Statute Prosecutor ”The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.”
Paragraph 29: Article 66(1), (2) and (3) of the Rome Statute. Presumption of innocence “1. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law. 2. The onus is on the Prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused. 3. In order to convict the accused, the Court must be convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”
Paragraph 30: There exists here a grotesque irony of what has been done to me by the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus in relation to my charge against these same people that they will enjoy all the legal safety precautions put into place by law for people being accused of a crime but when I stood before them as an accused person then all of these laws regarding the rights of people being accused of crime then these same National Directors of Pubic Prosecutions and Erasmus denied me these same rights and trampled Constitutional and International law into the mud.
Paragraph 31: My criminal allegations against the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus are allegations and the Prosecutor will decide whether or not to bring these people before the court to answer to my allegations.
Paragraph 32: In the event that National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus are brought before the court to answer to my allegations then automatically the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus do have the right to a fair trial and all of Article 66 of the Rome Statute does apply and must be enforced.
Paragraph 33: These rights under Article 66 and all the rights of an accused person according to other laws come into immediate force and the law must and will guarantee that the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus receive a fair trial failing which they will be released.
Paragraph 34: When the National Director of Public Prosecutions brought me before Erasmus in his court as an accused person in 2002 and 2003 then the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus deprived me of all of these same rights that they will now be given the benefit to enjoy.
Paragraph 35: When I was facing, in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court, criminal allegations in 2002 and 2003 then the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus, in the High Court, on a different platform outside the criminal court hearings, deprived me of all of the considerations in Article 66 of the Rome Statute and I was deprived of nearly every fundamental civil right as laid down in criminal law.
Paragraph 36: Section 35(3)(h) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to remain silent during the proceedings.”
Paragraph 37: The Rome statute also makes provision for this.
Paragraph 38: Article 55 of the Rome Statute: Rights of persons during an investigation: “1. In respect of an investigation under this Statute, a person: (a) Shall not be compelled to incriminate himself or herself or to confess guilt; (b) Shall not be subjected to any form of coercion, duress or threat, to torture or to any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Paragraph 39: In 2002 and 2003 the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus denied me my right to silence during the proceedings of my criminal trials.
Paragraph 40: On the 11th of January 2002, in the midst of my criminal trial, the National Director of Public Prosecutions terrorized me in a letter (SEE ANNEX 2 – TORTURE LETTER) sent to my lawyers that I would loose my garage sale business and my property and my home if I did not submit answering affidavits into the Erasmus civil trial on the same allegations I was facing in the criminal trial.
Paragraph 41: This is torture driving me away from my right to silence and through the terror of loosing my property, my home and my garage sale business I broke down under duress and sacrificed my right to silence in the hope of saving these things and I submitted answering affidavits to Erasmus.
Paragraph 42: The National Director of Public Prosecutions immediately unlawfully seized this information that was directly related to the identical allegations that I was facing in the criminal trial.
Paragraph 43: These submissions that I made under duress were then, in 2004, submitted by the National Director of Public Prosecutions into my criminal trial as the supposed to be evidence that I had committed the crime of which I was being accused. (SEE TOP OF PAGE 132 OF ANNEX 5)
Paragraph 44: The Erasmus civil trial was running concurrent with my criminal trial and in both trials the criminal allegations that were being presented against me in the criminal trial were the same and identical as in the civil trial.
Paragraph 45: The criminal allegations in both of the 2 criminal trials and in the Erasmus trial all stemmed from the same single arrest on the 31st January 2001.
Paragraph 46: In the public domain, the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus did not presume my innocence during the proceedings of my 2 criminal trials.
Paragraph 47: Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to attacks upon his honour and reputation.”
Paragraph 48: Prejudicing my criminal trials and for punishing me for a crime that did not and does not exist, Erasmus, gave permission for National newspapers throughout South Africa to report that I was a criminal.
Paragraph 49: Section 35(3)(h) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent during the proceedings.”
Paragraph 50: Article (11) (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent.”
Paragraph 51: If the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus are brought before the International Criminal Court then they will have the safety of Article 55(2)(b) of the Rome Statute with regard to the right to silence but in 2002 and 2003 both the National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus denied me this civil right on a platform outside of and during the proceedings of my 2 criminal trials.
Paragraph 52: The National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus have commissioned scores of civil right violations and I make mention of some of these.
Paragraph 53: The civil rights to which I draw attention are some of those rights which exist and serve to support and give force to the crimes that I am alleging.
Paragraph 54: On the 22nd May 2003, Erasmus punished me during the proceedings of my criminal trial while I was a suspect.
Paragraph 55: The National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus did not prove my criminal guilt to any extent that is required by criminal law.
Paragraph 56: Article 14(2) of Part 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: . “Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”
Paragraph 57: Erasmus ignored procedural guarantees of my right to a fair criminal trial as envisaged by Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”
Paragraph 58: Erasmus did not apply the principal of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Paragraph 59: Erasmus punished me on the grounds of a balance of probabilities and a suspicion.
Paragraph 60: There is no defence against a charge that accuses you of being a suspect.
Paragraph 61: The National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus deviated from what is compulsory according to the rule of law and according to International Law and criminal law procedures and these people invented their own formula to determine and arrive at a verdict of criminal guilt which is also diametrically in conflict with and inconsistent with South African Constitutional law and common law.
Paragraph 62: Supreme Court of Canada, case case number 17550, R v Oakes, see paragraph 29:
Paragraph 63: The National Director of Public Prosecutions did not enter any tangible evidence into the Erasmus trial.
Paragraph 64: Other than unsubstantiated and unfounded claims on pieces of paper the National Director of Public Prosecutions did not put forward into the court room a single physical object to support the criminal claims that were being made.
Paragraph 65: All of the “supposed” to be evidence that was seized on the 31st January 2001 when I was arrested has been destroyed by the drug police and none of these articles appeared before Erasmus in his court room and this has been established as a fact in a trial and judgement on the 11th January 2011 before Magistrate Eric Louw in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court which was a trial wherein I was desperately trying to force the drug police to return my chemicals and my laboratory after I had been acquitted.
Paragraph 66: In the Erasmus trial no oral cross examination took place and I was given not any opportunity to question my accusers before the judge because, for some reason, unbeknown to me, the National Director of Public Prosecutions did not summon a single witness into the court room.
Paragraph 67: In the complete absence of physical evidence and oral testimony, Erasmus arrived at his false conclusions about the criminal allegations against me from nothing more than hearsay allegations on pieces of paper and uncontested fictitious stories.
Paragraph 68: By deviating from what is demanded and is expected and is compulsory by established criminal law the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus made it impossible for me to present a defence against the criminal allegations.
Paragraph 69: I wasted my money to have employed lawyers and advocates.
Paragraph 70: I am and I have always been innocent of the criminal allegations of which I have been accused and of which Erasmus has punished me and as an accused person I am by absolute authority entitled to say that I am innocent by dictate of law.
Paragraph 71: I am 100% innocent of the allegations for which Erasmus has punished me.
Paragraph 72: Had I been pronounced guilty in either one of the criminal trials then the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus would have easily escaped the alleged crimes of which they are being accused.
Paragraph 73: Unfortunately for the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus I was found to be not guilty in both of the criminal trials.
Paragraph 74: It is inconceivable to me and it is devastatingly frustrating for me that, given the facts, and more than 20 years into this dreadfully painful terrible ordeal that has been forced upon me in the absence of any complaint and in the absence of a single allegation of wrong doing from any person from within the general population yet here I am still fighting tooth and nail to defend my dignity but allow me to make this as clear as a loud ringing bell to everyone that as of today and as has always been:
a) I stand before the International Criminal Court as an innocent man and a law abiding citizen who has been unlawfully punished by being arbitrary deprived of my property without compensation.
b) I stand before the International Criminal Court as an innocent man and a law abiding citizen who has been unlawfully punished by being arbitrary deprived of the safety and the security of my home with nowhere to go but into the crime invested streets of Cape Town.
d) I stand before the International Criminal Court as an innocent man and a law abiding citizen who has been unlawfully punished by being unlawfully deprived of my employment.
e) I stand before the International Court as an innocent man and a law abiding citizen who has been unlawfully deprived of my income.
f) I stand before the International Criminal Court as an innocent man and a law abiding citizen who has been unlawfully punished for an act I was suspected of having committed.
Paragraph 75: Everything outlined in 74 a), b), c), d), e) and f) happened to me because Erasmus decided that he could punish me because the National Director of Public Prosecutions accused me of being implicated in a crime that did not and does not exist.
Paragraph 76: I have no criminal record and I stand before the International Criminal Court with a Police Clearance Certificate that states that “no convictions have been recorded for any crime in the Republic of South Africa against Simon Prophet.” (SEE ANNEX 4 – POLICE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE)
Paragraph 77: When Erasmus punished me for being a criminal suspect there existed only an allegation of wrong doing coming from the drug police but that allegation was arrived at through the unlawful acts of the drug police (SEE TOP OF PAGE 162 OF ANNEX A5) and as it is now the allegation itself under scrutiny has been shown to have been unfounded (SEE TOP OF PAGE 118 OF ANNEX 5) and there is no proper official confirmed report that exists to say that any person has ever committed any crime that ever took place at any time in any hour of any day of any year at 54 Balfour Street.
Paragraph 78: Neither the National Directors of Public Prosecutions nor Erasmus have any confirmed or substantiated proof as is required by law that a crime did occur or has ever occurred at 54 Balfour Street.
Paragraph 79: Everyone who was charged for the alleged crimes that have been claimed to have happened at 54 Balfour Street have been found to be not guilty on the 8th April 2005 in the criminal trial Cape Town Magistrate's Court case number 16/236/03 with Magistrate Le Roux as the presiding Magistrate and Sylvester Vogel and William Fisher as the legal defence team. (SEE TOP OF PAGE 181 OF ANNEX 5)
Paragraph 80: During this trial, after a lengthy examination of all the chemicals that were seized by the drug police, it was established that none of these chemicals were or are illegal to possess.
Paragraph 81: Under cross examination the arresting officer, Johan Smit, stated under oath during cross examination that the unlawful search (SEE TOP OF PAGE 162 OF ANNEX 5) conducted by the drug police did not produce anything at 54 Balfour Street that would warrant an arrest under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992. (SEE TOP OF PAGE 118 OF ANNEX 5)
Paragraph 82: The same people who were charged in case number 16/236/03 also appeared in another and a second criminal trial also in the Cape Town Magistrate's Court case number 16/79/01 with Magistrate Matthews presiding and Norman Snitcher and Piet Mihalik as the legal defence team involving the identical allegations.
Paragraph 83: This criminal trial court case number 16/79/01 also did not convict anyone or confirm the criminal allegations because the case was set aside on 7th April 2003 by an order from Judge J Louw and Judge J Motala in the Cape Town High Court Reference number 031188 case number 16/789/01 and by default all of the accused were acquitted.
Paragraph 84: Section 6(b) of the South African Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 states that "at any time after an accused has pleaded, but before conviction, stop the prosecution in respect of that charge, in which event the court trying the accused shall acquit the accused in respect of that charge."
Paragraph 85: Section 35(3)(m) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted.”
Paragraph 86: On the 22nd May 2003, Erasmus made a ruling to punish me after my default acquittal and while I was still a suspect during the proceedings of the second criminal trial while both criminal trials were both dealing with the identical allegations that had been given to Erasmus by the National Director of Public Prosecutions.
Paragraph 87: Article 14(7) of Part 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.”
Paragraph 88: Erasmus ignored my right to a trial of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Paragraph 89: In the International Criminal Court as those accused of crime, the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus can expect a trial where conviction demands “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” but in 2002 and 2003, neither the National Director of Public Prosecutions nor Erasmus allowed me the benefit of this same law.
Paragraph 90: The National Director of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus ignored the law, denied me my right of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and used a “balance of probabilities” and a “suspicion” to convict me.
Paragraph 91: Under the umbrella of suspicion Erasmus cast my dignity into the gutter.
Paragraph 92: In the International Criminal Court the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus will have the right to a fair trial but in 2003 Erasmus punished me for criminal allegations relating to an alleged crime that did not exist and still today these alleged crimes exist only in imagination and on a hunch and/or a gut feeling.
Paragraph 93: None of the criminal allegations for which Erasmus punished me exist in real life.
Paragraph 94: Erasmus punished me for being a suspect which under International Law is boldly identified as an act of torture and according to the Rome Statute, “torture” is seen to be a crime against humanity.
Paragraph 95: Article 1(1) of Part 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984 entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27(1): “For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as punishing him for an act he is suspected of having committed.”
Paragraph 96: Article 7(1)(f) of the Rome Statute holds torture under the heading of Crimes Against Humanity and for the purpose of paragraph 1 Article 7(2)(e) of the Rome Statute states that “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person under the control of the accused;”
Paragraph 97: Section 12(1)(d) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right not to be tortured in any way.”
Paragraph 98: The Prevention of Combating and Torture of Persons Act 13 of 2013 only came into effect in South Africa after 2013, after the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus had allegedly tortured me but the Preamble of Act 13 makes a startling revelation:
“AND MINDFUL that the Republic of South Africa — has a shameful history of gross human rights abuses, including the torture of many of its citizens and inhabitants;”
Paragraph 99: Erasmus made it clear in his judgement that he did not and would not give me the right to silence during the proceedings of my criminal trials.
Paragraph 100: In paragraph 11 of his judgement, Erasmus excuses away my right to silence: “In principle then in every such case where civil and criminal proceedings are instituted by the same activity the respondent is called upon to make a tough choice. He must weigh up the consequences and resolve the ‘dilemma’ in which he finds himself.”
Paragraph 101: I submitted affidavits into the civil trial because the National Director of Public Prosecutions had tortured me into signing those affidavits.
Paragraph 102: Outside of the criminal trials Erasmus declared that I was guilty and he punished me while I was an accused person being presumed to be innocent.
Paragraph 103: While I was awaiting the criminal trial as an accused person in the criminal trial and being presumed to be innocent, Erasmus condemned me and proclaimed that I was guilty and he punished me while I was a suspect and in paragraph 12 of his judgement, with his pathetic inability to properly comprehend and interpret the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 he ends up proclaiming about me: “Accordingly both the importation of phenyl acetic acid and the manufacture of 1-phenyl-2-propanone puts respondent firmly within the definition of having dealt in an undesirable dependence producing drug” which is a pack of lies because neither phenyl acetic acid nor 1-phenyl-2-propanone are drugs, not in the world of chemistry nor in the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 and neither of these industrial chemicals contain any narcotic properties whatsoever.
Paragraph 104: Under the fear and the terror of losing everything the National Director of Public Prosecutions succeeded in forcing me, under duress, to sign and submit answering affidavits regarding the criminal allegations that I was facing in the forthcoming criminal trials and violated my right to silence in those trials by torturing me with the threat and the fear of loosing everything.
Paragraph 105: Section 35(3)(h) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right not to testify, during the proceedings.”
Paragraph 106: Section 35(3)(h) of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996 states that “every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to remain silent during the proceedings.”
Paragraph 107: I am the victim of crimes that are defined as torture and torture is included as a crime against humanity.
Paragraph 108: To be punished for a crime that I have not committed obviously is also a violation of Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Paragraph 109: Hypocrisy reigns supreme when South Africa tortures me while it condemns Israel.
Paragraph 110: High ranking South African Judges and signatories at the International Court of Justice have condemned Israel but where were they and where was Judge Dikgang Ernest Moseneke when Erasmus was torturing me?
Paragraph 111: Where are they now and where is Judge Dikgang Ernest Moseneke while I am shouting from the roof tops about how I have been tortured?
Paragraph 112: The judges complained that homes were bombed in Gaza but where were they and where was Judge Dikgang Ernest Moseneke when Erasmus deprived me of my home and had me cast into the darkness and the dangers of the crime riddled streets of one of the world's most dangerous places?
Paragraph 113: My civil right to the safety and the security of my home was denied by Erasmus.
Paragraph 114: Article 25 1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to housing.”
Paragraph 115: Where were these judges and where was Judge Dikgang Ernest Moseneke when the National Director of Public Prosecutions engineered for me to be arrested on false charges and taken away from my home in handcuffs while the National Director of Public Prosecutions plundered all of my private possessions including my two cars? (SEE ANNEX 1 - LOSS OF AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY)
Paragraph 116: Where were these judges and where was Judge Dikgang Ernest Moseneke when the National Director of Public Prosecutions was grabbing everything in sight and unlawfully enriching itself with the theft of my life's labour?
Paragraph 117: Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “(1) Everyone has the right to own property. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”
Paragraph 118: The African National Congress government was bankrupt at that time when it brought the allegations against Israel.
Paragraph 119: The African National Congress government failed in its bid to overturn a High Court judgement that ordered the seizure of its assets after failing to pay 102 million rand to Ezulwini Investments.
Paragraph 120: The rumour on social media platforms is that the African National Congress government received an undisclosed amount of money from Iran in exchange for taking Israel to the International Court of Justice.
Paragraph 121: South Africa spent millions to accuse Israel of wrong doing but at home without conscience, South Africa, Erasmus,and scores of high ranking judges deprived me of my garage sale business and convicted me into the ranks of the unemployed.
Paragraph 122: Article 23(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment and to protection against unemployment.”
Paragraph 123: It might appear trivial to mention unemployment next to war crimes but Statista ranks South Africa as having the world's highest unemployment rate with 28.4% of the South African population unemployed.
Paragraph 124: Some say that 60% of South African youth are unemployed and many of them in the whole extent of their lives will never know what it is to have a job.
Paragraph 125: Where is the justification for the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus to have deprived me of my garage sale business and to have deprived the people who did enjoy and could still be gaining benefit from that enterprise?
Paragraph 126: On the 24th April 2023 I complained about the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus to the Judicial Service Commission.
Paragraph 127: On the 14th of December 2023 the Commission replied to tell me that my complaint was “frivolous and lacking in substance.”
Paragraph 128: On the 15th of January 2024 I appealed.
Paragraph 129: On the the 14th August 2024 the Judicial Conduct Committee made a ruling to say that my complaint was convoluted and “the Committee could not make head or tail of it.”
Paragraph 130: Apparently Erasmus, in reply to my complaints stated that there was no merit in my complaint “as it emanates from a judgement he made almost 20 years ago.”
Paragraph 131: Crimes against humanity that were committed against Jewish people 70 years ago during the Second World War are still being prosecuted today.
Paragraph 132: Torture does not come with a statute of limitations.
Paragraph 133: On the 21st August 2009 when I was making progress to challenge the alleged unlawful acts that have been committed against me by the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus then 2 men were paid to murder me and the horror of that attack and the fear that there was a real possibility that there might be another attempt on my life made me withdraw. (SEE ANNEX 6 – INJURIES INFLICTED)
Paragraph 134: The incident in the previous paragraph included the death of Mr Codloza who succumbed to his injuries which is recorded in the Kraaifontein Police Station case number 800/801/8/2009 and 15 years later, today, on the 4th of September 2024 we are still waiting for the Inquest to be heard.
Paragraph 135: As I draft these new complaints against the same people mentioned in paragraph 133 but this time for the attention of the International Criminal Court I am again filled with fear for my life because again someone may get paid to do away with me.
Paragraph 136: I have been told that before Erasmus became a judge he was an attorney who defended members of criminal gangs on the Cape Flats and around Cape Town.
Paragraph 137: It is my opinion that in the event that the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus are found to be guilty of my allegations against them then it will imply that a lot of people including Lawrence Mushwana and Pandelis Gregoroiu of the South African Human Rights Commission and Shamila Batohi, the current National Director of Public Prosecutions who have turned a blind eye to my pleadings about having been tortured, the Supreme Court Judges, Mpati, Streicher, Mithyane, Cloete and Ponnana, who upheld the Erasmus Judgement, the Constitutional Court judges who also upheld the Erasmus Judgement, Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mokgoro, O’Regan, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob and Nkabinde, and also the Acting Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission, Chief Justice Maya and the judges of the Judicial Conduct Committee, Jafta, Shongwe, Saldulker and Mabindla-Boqwana who have all given their approval and have colluded with the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus and agreed with the Erasmus judgement that punished me for an act I was suspected of having committed, these people, one and all, including the advocates Jeremy Gauntlet and Win Trengrove who don't know me from a bar of soap, who have never met me or spoken to me and know nothing about me and who were employed by the National Director of Public Prosecutions to destroy me and as people trained in law who should have known or, at the very least, should have suspected that what was being done to me was against the law, and including Mr Jacobs, the Senior Public Prosecutor of the Cape Town Magistrate's Court who cowardly has tried to conceal alleged unlawful actions relating to my allegations, these people all, are, according to me, complicit in the alleged crimes of the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus in that they have actively engaged against me or they have attempted to conceal the crimes that I am alleging.
Paragraph 138: Article 4(1) of Part One of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: “...all acts of torture are offences under ...criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity in torture.”
Paragraph 139: For me, a nobody, with nothing, alone and against the colossal might of so many people in such exalted positions it has not been easy but I know that I am right and I know what is written in the law and I know what the law allows and I know what the law does not allow and for however long this might take, I know that at the end of the day the law is agreeing with me and for those, no matter how high and almighty they may imagine themselves to be, for them, who have tread the wrong path against me when there is no reasonable explanation for them not to have known better, they are going to be called to account.
Paragraph 140: There exists nothing in any law that is rightful and acceptable in any civilized country in any part of the world that allows for a man who has been acquitted of a crime for that man to be punished by the state for the same crime of which he has been acquitted and there is no excuse for any judge or any advocate or any member of the courts to plead ignorance of this fact and there can be no exceptions.
Paragraph 141: I am homeless and destitute and obviously without the resources there is no way for me to be able to prove or show that powerful people have ganged up against me and have colluded together to engage unlawful acts to ruin me in order to propagate certain sections of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act 121 of 1998 that contains flagrant violations of Constitutional law that under thorough investigation and proper scrutiny are indefensible.
Paragraph 142: Without money or means I must push forward to do the best I can to ensure that justice will be done.
Paragraph 143: I am at the International Criminal Court pleading to the compassion and the wisdom of the Prosecutor and to the righteousness of the International Criminal Court to see my allegations for what they are and to help not only me but to serve the generations of people to come.
Paragraph 144: I am pleading to the International Criminal Court to show to the world that in the long run then justice will always prevail.
Paragraph 145: For party states that are signed into the Rome Statute never should any of those countries be permitted to engage unlawful practices.
Paragraph 146: The Rome Statute guarantees that no state will be permitted to the engage ruthless torture of citizens and to set into motion and applaud far reaching unlawful legal actions that allow for innocent people to be punished on account of unconfirmed allegations and on account of hearsay stories when those people are law abiding citizens.
Paragraph 147: Depriving me of my home, my personal possessions, my land, my employment, my income, my property, my business, my cars and to strip me of my life's labour without compensation because of a crime that does not exist nor ever has existed is an act of monstrous cruelty that is inexcusable.
Paragraph 148: The failure of the South African judges at the highest of levels to acknowledge and to respect my innocence being true then this reveals a despicable and shameful disregard of the most basic laws of human rights and the rule of law.
Paragraph 149: For the National Directors of Public Prosecutions to deprive me of the safety of my home and to cast me out into a vicious domain where Cape Town ranks as one of the most dangerous places in the world is South Africa's disgraceful public demonstration of being uncivilized to the point of being barbaric.
Paragraph 150: I refuse to allow the commissioning of International Crimes Against Humanity that cheers to give itself a pat on the back when in the greater picture of life, what has been done to me is a deplorable criminal attack against all members of the human family.
Paragraph 152: Reuters has reported that Alex Jones has been ordered to pay $1.1 billion in defamation damages stemming from his repeated lies about the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre.
Paragraph 153: The National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus have broken the law to tell lies about me and their lies have been repeated from one court room to the next, which took the lies to the media outlets including full front page National newspapers throughout the whole of South Africa to the point where the lies have come to be believed.
Paragraph 154: Both my life and my dignity have been destroyed beyond repair on account of those lies.
Paragraph 155: A precedent needs to be set so that what has been done to me will never be allowed to happen to anyone in the future again and again and again on a continuous and an ongoing basis which is what has been and still is the intention of the National Directors of Public Prosecutions.
Paragraph 156: It is my contention that there is an unholy ulterior motive that lurks behind the civil asset forfeiture of my property in Prophet v National Director of Public Prosecutions.
Paragraph 157: The National Directors of Public Prosecutions and Erasmus have used me to set up, enforce and applaud unlawful sections of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act 121 of 1998 that is giving permission to the National Directors of Public Prosecutions and gives permission to any Judge to use uncontested unsubstantiated hearsay allegations against any innocent people and to unlawfully punish law abiding citizens by arbitrary depriving them of all of their property without compensation and also to arbitrary deprive them of their businesses without compensation and thereby opening an unlawful legal channel that allows the African National Congress government or any government to unlawfully enrich itself through ill gotten gains.
Paragraph 158: Unless something drastic is done then these unlawful acts will continue to flourish.
Paragraph 159: I pray for the torturing and the cruelty to stop here.
Submitted on the 24th of September 2024. Paragraph 1 to paragraph 159 as to how he has been tortured. 6 Annexes support the submission. Annex 1 - loss of and damage to property – see paragraph 18 and 115. Annex 2 - torture letter – see paragraph 40. Annex 3 - garage sale business – see paragraph 74(c). Annex 4 - police clearance certificate – see paragraph 76. Annex 5 - criminal trial transcripts – see paragraph 24, 43, 77, 79 and 81. Annex 6 – injuries inflicted – see paragraph 133. Annex 7 – National Identity Card. |
|
Annex 5. Page 181 of the criminal trial transcripts case number 16/236/03. To see the full transcripts CLICK HERE
Annex 5. Page 132 of the criminal trial transcripts case number 16/236/03. To see the full transcripts CLICK HERE
Annex 5. Page 162 of the criminal trial transcripts case number 16/236/03. To see the full transcripts CLICK HERE
Annex 5. Page 118 of the criminal trial transcripts case number 16/236/03. To see the full transcripts CLICK HERE
|
