Former Moti Group employee Clinton van Niekerk could once again face arrest for alleged theft and distribution of private and confidential documents allegedly stolen from his employer.
Van Nierkerk faced a warrant of arrest overturned by a previous court order, but the Durban High Court set it aside after a year-long legal battle.
He was accused of stealing more than 4 000 files with the aim to release “private and confidential matters” of Moti Group to the media. The documents were allegedly also shared with tycoon Frederick Lutzkie.
His arrest was at the King Shaka International Airport in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, while he was allegedly attempting to flee on January 25 last year. He was transferred to Randburg on January 26, and the matter was struck off the roll the next day.
Since then, the authenticity of his warrant of arrest has been challenged as the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) stamped it as theft whereas the second part of it, signed and stamped by the justice of peace, regarded the charge as fraud.
It was then argued the document might have been fraudulent, an attempt at stopping Van Nierkerk from blowing the whistle to the media.
However, the Durban court ruled the document authentic.
Lutzkie, who is the second responded in the matter allegedly found that the Moti Group was involved in “several high-profile crimes in the public domain, including government officials” and claimed Van Niekerk had found information linking the firm to corruption and murder.
According to the court documents, Lutzkie had testified that Van Niekerk was not attempting to flee the country but rather preparing to go to London, where he would testify on international crimes. This after they sought help from the Australian police as they feared for their lives, noting that Moti had a strong influence in the South African Police Service.
The high court ruled that: “It follows that the ex-parte procedure was flawed, and the order was incorrect. The habeas corpus application was erroneously sought and erroneously granted. The applicants do not seek a reinstatement of the warrant of arrest but merely an order that the order granted was erroneous.
“I accordingly make the following order: the application succeeds, and the order of Shapiro AJ made on 27 January 2023 is set aside. The registrar is directed to take the necessary steps to ensure that this judgement is brought to the attention of the National Director of