Simon Prophet has no criminal drug record and there is no verifiable record of any drug crime ever having been committed at 54 Balfour Street yet in 2003 the National Director of Public Prosecutions sold Simon's home as an instrumentality of a non existent drug crime.

In violation of Non derogable Constitutional Law and in violation of International Law the National Director of Public Prosecutions presumed Simon's criminal guilt and to satisfy an Act of Parliament that is inconsistent with the Constitution, Simon's "innocent owner" status was ignored by both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court was convinced that "undoubtedly" tik was being manufactured at 54 Balfour Street but the claims of those judges is in conflict with the facts and part of the facts are that the Constitutional Court Judges were unable to get the facts in their own judgement.

The facts are that no crime has ever been recorded as having been committed at 54 Balfour Street.

Simon Prophet was condemned in the absence of a crime.

An allegation of wrong doing is not the same thing as a confirmed fact.

The Constitutional Court condemned Simon Prophet on allegations and fictitious stories not facts.

Not one witness for the National Director of Public Prosecutions was called before the court room to give oral testimony and face cross examination from the defence which is compulsory in criminal law on matters involving criminal allegations.

Not a single physical article was presented before the Constitutional Court and that is probably why it is a fact that Constitutional Court Judges did not even know what chemicals are said to have been seized at 54 Balfour Street.

Contrary to claims made by the Constitutional Court Judgement, potassium hydroxide has never been claimed to have been found at 54 Balfour Street but the Constitutional Court Judgement refers twice to this unfound chemical as being intrinsic to chemical processes that were supposed to have been taking place.

The inclusion of potassium hydroxide as being part of the chemical processes is not a printing error coming from the Constitutional Court because this non existent chemical is mentioned not once but twice in paragraph 17 of the Constitutional Court Judgement.

This is an error that exposes a lack of understanding which provides absolutely no foundation for the judges to arrive at firm accusations about what Simon Prophet was supposed to be doing.

When it becomes clear from the judge's own errors in their own judgement and about their errors regarding the nature of any chemistry at 54 Balfour Street then it follows that the Constitutional Court Judges did not know much about chemistry.

The Constitutional Court judges relied on only one far away, not in the court room witness who was not summoned to court in person to explain himself and when Simon Prophet submitted conflicting written information from an expert who had been a lecturer of organic chemistry from the University of the Western Cape for 16 years who basically said that Venter's analysis of how things work in chemistry was rubbish then the Constitutional Court judges would not allow Simon Prophet to make that submission.

Consequently it follows that the conclusions to which the court arrived at could easily have been false and "on a balance of probabilities" and a "reasonable suspicion" then all of the conclusions were not only wrong but they were unlawful.

Simon Prophet has been condemned on lies and when he finally brought the National Director of Public Prosecution's principal liar to be tried for perjury then Mr Jacobs, the Senior Public Prosecutor of the Cape Town Magistrate's Court refused to bring this supposed to be witness, Casper Hendrik Venter to court to answer to Simon Prophet's allegations.

Why was it expedient for the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court to sacrifice South Africa's Bill of Rights in order to respect, protect, promote and fulfil civil asset forfeiture?

In a lawful society it would happen the other way around and civil asset forfeiture would have been sacrificed to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights because any law that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid.

Civil asset forfeiture is not being used in the direction of where it was intended and the way in which it has been used to forfeit Simon Prophet's properties has played out, at the end of the day, to have facilitated various criminal acts some of which are defined as a crimes against humanity.

It takes effort to get past the veneer of civil asset forfeiture to be able to see the dangerous loopholes that come embedded within this Act of Parliament.

An added purpose, which is hidden, is not to prevent crime but is a master mind control game to dupe you and the entire world into quietly accepting to relinquish any individual's right to own land.

Where fairness reigns supreme, in a world that is free, who owns what is as a consequence of a willing buyer and a willing seller and a fundamental function of government is to vociferously protect people's property and this is legally enforceable through Section 25 of the Constitution.

When government meddles into which individuals can own land and which individuals can't own land then South Africa is degraded into an anti-constitutional plight that rages war against the will of people who want to own land.

Julius Malema's proposal to deprive white South African's of their property without compensation has already happened to Simon Prophet in 2003 and the action was sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Appeal in 2005 and was also sanctioned by the Constitutional Court in 2006.

In the recent 2024 elections, it has been economically reassuring that more than 90% of South Africa did not vote for Malema which is an indication that South African people as a whole support Section 25 of the Constitution which is a compelling factor for the civil courts to reconsider their decision to have derogated and denied Prophet's right to Section 25.

For what it is worth, the voting poles have spoken; the right to private property is intrinsic to the people of South Africa.

"No one may be deprived of property, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property."

Equality, constitutionality and the rule of law.

The following extract is taken from an article written by Leon Louw published by the Free Market Foundation 29th March 2005 relating to powers that are in conflict with the rule of law.

"One of the most extreme is the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA), known popularly as the asset forfeiture law. As always, the law was defended with persuasive rhetoric to the effect that abnormal powers are necessary to fight international organised crime. When rule of law protagonists queried the extraordinary powers in the act, they were told that the government needs to be tough on crime, a sentiment shared by almost everyone, which is why there is widespread support for the law. We were reminded during the debate that similar powers exit in the USA, which supposedly legitimises all dubious laws on the basis that the United States is our benchmark for what ought to be done during our transition towards being a mature democracy. This is nearly as bizarre as an attempt to justify dubious things done now on the grounds that they were done under apartheid.

Advocates of the rule of law warned that power corrupts and that powers intended to protect us from large, sophisticated and dangerous crime syndicates would be used against ordinary civilians, which is precisely what is happening. The legislation has to my knowledge never been used to seize the assets of international crime syndicates. Instead it is used to take the assets of ordinary civilians. The Act purports to give officialdom virtually unbridled arbitrary power to take all or any of any citizen's assets whether or not the person has committed an offence. All your wealth could be seized without your ever having committed an offence, or ever being charged, making it impossible for you to hire lawyers for your defence."

Willie Hofmeyr and his buddy Jacob.

In 2001, to protect and promote the Prevention of Organized Crime Act, in its attack against Simon Prophet, Willie Hofmeyr told the people of South Africa that civil asset forfeiture would prevent the country from being run by criminals and then all the way up to and after 2009, Willie Hofmeyr, as acting head of the Asset and Forfeiture Unit, watched, seemingly paralyzed, as a man directly connected to an eighty billion Rand corruption, fraud and racketeering disgrace, namely Jacob Zuma, who accepted a bribe from a convicted felon, was elected to run the country as the president of South Africa.

Makes you think doesn't it?

Everyone knows, including Willie Hofmeyr, that in the world of speculation and on a balance of probabilities that Jacob Zuma, with 783 charges of corruption, racketeering and fraud, is toast. Schabir Shaik was sentenced to 15 years jail and his assets were forfeited because he was found guilty of bribing Jacob Zuma but as far as forfeiting Jacob Zuma's assets for accepting the bribe then Willie Hofmeyr stirred not.

Simon Prophet agrees with Jacob Zuma that "a person who is charged remains innocent until proven otherwise" but does not agree with Willie Hofmeyr who maintains that civil asset forfeiture can circumvent criminal justice and forfeit assets from a person who has been found to be not guilty of crime.

Do not be fooled. Civil asset forfeiture is not preventing crime as was intended and it has not prevented our country from being run by criminals.

The way it has been misused by the National Director of Public Prosecutions against Simon Prophet has been to destroy property rights as enshrined in Section 25 of the Constitution and to have attacked our fundamental freedoms.

In order to succeed, tyranny must present itself to a free nation in increments so that by the time you realize what is happening then it’s already too late.

We must see the inherent dangers within the Prevention of Organized Crime Act for what they really are and we must take cognizance of how civil asset forfeiture has been manipulated by the National Director of Public Prosecutions against Simon Prophet to challenge and to put down the South African Constitution.

In an attack against Simon Prophet was civil asset forfeiture honestly being applied to prevent syndicate crime or was it being exploited by the National Director of Public Prosecutions as the beginning part of an elaborate mind control plot to end private ownership of land?

This website uses the case history of Simon Prophet to reveal the extent to which the system of Justice in South African has been seduced into openly violating International Law, Constitutional Law, Common Law, Natural Law and the Ten Commandments in order to uphold the wrong and the unlawful abuse of civil asset forfeiture.

It is not a primary function of government to deprive people of their property.

Calling Simon Prophet a drug dealer does not entitle the National Director of Public Prosecutions to violate God's law of "Thou shalt not steal!" and 10 000 people have signed a petition in agreement.