The Free State High Court has cleared the way for former Free State premier Ace Magashule’s personal assistant, Moroadi Cholota, to stand trial on fraud, corruption, and money-laundering charges, dismissing her remaining attempt to halt prosecution over her controversial extradition from the US.
In a judgment delivered in Bloemfontein on Wednesday, the court rejected all remaining grounds of Cholota’s special plea, ruling that it retains jurisdiction to try her despite earlier findings that her extradition from the US had been unlawful.
The ruling brings to a close a complex legal battle that has turned on whether alleged irregularities in the state’s extradition process could invalidate criminal proceedings against her.
Grounds of special plea dismissed
Judge Phillip Loubser ruled that, although earlier proceedings found the extradition to have been unlawful, this did not strip the South African court of jurisdiction to try Cholota.
The court held that the Constitutional Court had already determined that the unlawfulness of the extradition did not automatically invalidate criminal jurisdiction and had ordered the high court to determine the remaining grounds of her special plea.
The remaining grounds included allegations that the state misled US authorities, fabricated or exaggerated evidence, and falsely portrayed her as a fugitive who refused to return to South Africa.
After analysing witness testimony, extradition records and US court findings, the high court concluded that none of those arguments justified halting the prosecution.
“The remaining grounds of Ms Cholota’s special plea are dismissed,” the court ordered, adding that it has jurisdiction to try her on the charges she faces.
Cholota’s core argument was that South African authorities misrepresented facts to US officials to secure her extradition.
She claimed she was charged only after refusing to implicate former Free State officials and that there was no good reason to prosecute her.
The court rejected this version, finding that evidence existed linking her to the underlying corruption investigation before her US interview and that probable cause had been established independently by US courts.
Testimony from investigators indicated that she became a suspect once she declined to provide a witness statement and that there was already direct evidence implicating her in the matter.
The judge concluded that the state had demonstrated “beyond a reasonable doubt” that there was a reasonable and probable cause for the charges and that she was not prosecuted merely for refusing to implicate others.
Findings by the US court
A key pillar of the judgment was reliance on findings by US courts during the extradition process.
The Maryland District Court had determined that sufficient evidence existed to support the charges and that the threshold of reasonable grounds had been met.
The US Secretary of State later authorised extradition on specified fraud and corruption counts, reinforcing his view that the request had undergone rigorous scrutiny.
The high court said these findings undermined Cholota’s argument that the extradition request was based on false information or lacked evidentiary foundation.
Cholota also argued that the state falsely portrayed her as a fugitive who had refused to return to South Africa.
The court acknowledged that some extradition documents suggested she had refused to return but found evidence that she had initially indicated willingness to come back voluntarily.
However, this factor alone did not form the basis of the extradition decision.
Testimony from investigators indicated that US authorities had their reasons for treating her as a flight risk, including international travel patterns and connections outside South Africa.
The judge found no conclusive evidence that the state deliberately misled US authorities on this point.
Links to a corruption syndicate
Another ground of challenge was that authorities misrepresented Cholota as having connections in Kenya and links to a corruption syndicate.
The court found that while she had travelled through Kenya and had connections elsewhere in Africa, this did not materially influence the US extradition decision.
On allegations that she was part of a syndicate facilitating kickbacks, the court noted that these claims were supported not only by state investigators but also by independent forensic audit material submitted during extradition proceedings.
While acknowledging that the main criminal trial will ultimately determine the strength of that evidence, the court held that its inclusion in the extradition record did not amount to a deliberate misrepresentation by prosecutors.
With the special plea dismissed, Cholota must now face trial alongside co-accused linked to the larger corruption case in the asbestos roof removal project in the Free State.
