Pietersen terug in die hof – Oudtshoorn Online
Pietersen terug in die hof
Skuldig aan bedrog; staat vra gevangestraf
Oudtshoorn. 15 Februarie 2012.
14h15. Die hof het Pietersen reg tot appèl toegestaan en op R500 borg vrygelaat.
12h22. Nic Barrow se kommentaar:
Ek is bly dat Reg en Geregtigheid uiteindelik geseëvier het. Ek het vir langer as 3 jaar hierdie saak saamgedra nadat ek op 10 Oktober 2008 die klagte teen Pietersen by die SAP gaan lê het. Dit was somtyds alleen.
Ek wonder wat sê Pietersen se vriende in die ANC nou?
‘n Meer volledige verklaring sal eersdaags uitgereik word.
Barrow het aan OO gesê dat hy hoop die felheid van die vonnis sal mense wat korrup met munisipale geld omgaan afskrik.
12h20. Judgement: Fine not appropriate; 5 years imprisonment in terms of s276 (1) (i) of the Criminal Prosedures Act.
Pietersen moet dus tronk toe gaan vir ‘n gedeelte van die tydperk – 1/6de; 10 maande – en die balans kan onder korrektiewe toesig uitgedien word.
Landros sal nou verlof tot appel aanhoor.
12h15. Van Wyngaardt: “Something is very, very rotten in the State of Denmark.”
12h10. Staat vra gevangestraf.
11h37. Uitspraak begin…
11h31. Van der Schyff kry ‘n laaste beurt.
11h28. Erasmus lewer repliek.
11h01. Van der Schyff stem saam met Van Wyngaardt: Die raadslede en die amptenare se houding was – anything goes, of iets in dier voge.
Die hof verdaag vir ‘n paar minute.
OO skud Van der Schyff se hand: “Good to see you again!”
10h58. Hoe Van der Schyff ook al probeer, Van Wyngaardt hou voet by stuk: die papierwerk – die resolusie – moes die “alarm bells” laat afgaan het.
10h50. Van Wyngaardt meen Pietersen kon regsbronne in die munisipaliteit genader het vir ‘n opinie.
Van der Schyff sê Pietersen het Gutas en Mathyssen se mening aanvaar.
Van Wyngaardt sê daar is twee goed: Aan die een kant is daar ‘n resolusie op papier; aan die ander kant is daar raadslede en amptenare wat iets ánders wil doen.
Toe Pietersen die resolusie gesien het moes “rooi ligte geflikker” het, want die resolusie gaan nie so ver as om betaling goed te keur nie.
“The Resolution, with the best will in the world, does not say”… that payment is authorised, sê Van Wyngaardt.
10h45. Landdros van Wyngaardt sê hy het ‘n paar probleme…
Eerstens, selfs al het die raad ‘n resolusie aanvaar om Pietersen se regskoste te betaal, het die raad die gesag om dit te doen, binne die raamwerk van die raad se magte?
En, tweedens, moes Pietersen, as MB, nie geweet het die betaling kon nie goedgekeur word nie – of kon hy nie ten minste gaan seker maak het nie?
Van der Schyff meen Pietersen het nie nodig gehad om die raad se besluit in twyfel te trek nie.
10h40. Van der Schyff betoog oor wat “gross negligence” is.
Hy verwys weer na die “framework” – Barrow se optrede, wat die gebeure gerig het.
10h33. Die amptenaar wat die betaling gemaak het, het verklaar dat Mathyssen voorgegee het dat die betaling deur die raad gemagtig was, sê Van der Schyff.
10h30. De Jager, sê Van der Schyff, het wyd advies gesoek oor optrede teen Pietersen en nié teen Pietersen opgetree nie.
Op 30 Oktober het Pietersen ‘n brief aan De Jager geskryf waarin hy sê dat as die betaling ‘n probleem is, die saak aangespreek moet word.
De Jager het nie terugbetaling geëis nie.
Van der Schyff trek De Jager se getuienis uitmekaar. Hy verwys daarna dat die ondersoekbeampte De Jager moes dagvaar vir inligting.
10h25. Van der Schyff betoog nou oor die feit dat die raad nie onmiddelik teen Pietersen opgetree het nie en dat redes vir dié versuim uit weersprekende getuienis van raadslede en amptenare duidelik word.
10h20. Nie eens die outiteur (moontlik ‘n verwysing na die interne ouditeur, Philip Nel) het die betaling bevraagteken nie, sê Van der Schyff.
10h15. Pietersen het die rekwisisie na ‘n middelbestuurder gestuur – die rekwisisie was nie ‘n opdrag om te betaal nie, aldus Van der Schyff.
10h10. Die voormalige direkteur korporatiewe dienste, Thembani Gutas; en Mathyssen het Pietersen onder die indruk gebring dat die raad die betaling goedgekeur het, meen Van der Schyff.
Hy meen ook uitsprake van Diane de Jager en Pierre Nel kon Pietersen onder die indruk gebring dat die raad die betaling goedgekeur het, omdat hulle voorgegee het dat daar ‘n “definite reason” was vir die raadsvergadering wat ondersteuning aan Pietersen beloof het.
10h00. Advokaat Van der Schyff, vir Pietersen, maak onmiddelik groot gewag oor die “omstandighede” van die gebeure: Nic Barrow’s conduct so hampered Council that action had to be taken. Dít skep die konteks vir die daaropvolgende gebeure.
09h55. Erasmus sluit af: Pietersen was die MB; Pietersen het opdrag gegee aan Smith Tabata; Pietersen het die rekwisisie geteken; Pietersen het die rekwisisie ingehandig; Pietersen het die oorspronklike Smith Tabata-faktuur vervang met ‘n gewysigde faktuur, uitgemaak aan die munisipaliteit; Pietersen het die betaling laat plaasvind… Pietersen het die moontlikheid voorsien dat sy optrede bevraagteken sou word, omdat die raadsresolusie, wat ondersteuning aan Pietersen bepaal en die enigste stawende dokument is, geen melding van betaling gemaak het nie.
09h47. Die staatsaanklaer, Johan Erasmus, is besig met sy slotbetoog. Hy vat die saak saam en sê dat Pietersen se verweer is dat hy opgetree het met die medewete en goedkeuring van die destydse HFB, Tinus Mathyssen en die burgemeester, Diane de Jager.
09h44. Die saak hervat.
09h30. Pietersen wag buite Hof E, in die teenwoordigheid van vertrouelinge, waaronder Ben Pannas.
Hoe werk die somme dan nou nie, oom Ben!?
09h25. Pietersen se saak is nog nie geroep nie.
08h50. Pietersen staan voor die hofgebou. Sy advokaat het pas verbygerey, waarskynlik op soek na parkeerplek.
07h25. ‘n Regskenner wat dié sage gevolg het, laat weet vanoggend dat hy meen die saak sal om mens rea wentel: Knowledge of wrongfulness.
As Pietersen loskom, meen OO se kommentator, sal dit aan Diane de Jager en haar kornuite se paranoia met Nic Barrow te danke wees.
Skerp mense wat OO lees. Meestal.
06h15. OO sal van 09h00 af deurlopende kommentaar van die hofverrigtinge lewer.
Oudtshoorn. 14 Februarie 2012.
13h15. Dominee Noël Pietersen het vanoggend getuig in die strafsaak wat op 9 Oktober verlede jaar begin het.
Die saak word môre voortgesit vir betoog en moontlik selfs uitspraak.
2012/02/14 2012/02/17 DB
← Meer as net nog ‘n gatstorie
“Dit was nie my intensie nie” →
24 thoughts on “Pietersen terug in die hof”
2013/02/01 at 14:41
Onskuldi, onskuldig, aan wat ?
Lyk my sy voorland gaan een word van Klagstaat tot Klagstaat hop todat hy in dieselfde finansieele posisie as Julius Malema beland, of hoe ? Hierdie is maar die begin van Doomsie se ‘woes” !!
2012/02/16 at 21:21
Kwb – wat de f.. probeer jy sê ? .Jou engelse gebrabbel is nog meer onverstaanbaar as jou afrikaanse pogings – probeer liewer arabies of so iets…
2012/02/16 at 07:32
KWB just to remind you of a recent apeals jument, it did change the first jugement, but not in favour of the accused, his time was extended and he was liable for cost.
2012/02/16 at 07:20
Looking at all the comments above, it remains clear that ODNners have not gone to see the movie “Courageous” yet.
Morality should always prevail.
2012/02/16 at 07:18
KWB – Again, another predictably boring retort.
2012/02/15 at 23:03
Nic Barrow, you remember the day when you came with your tale between your legs to make peace in Cape Town, with your cream trousers, and red rock jersey. The reason being, you were tired of fighting and was tired of investing your money in the inability of OO to present your case. You have had lost so many a case against Mfundisi. You know this is but the ears of the hippo and you can pull your trump cards down here, but wait, the case is not finish yet. Do you think this is justice, wait, wait and see! Remember, even though Josephs clothed were washed in blood and cause temporary pleasure to his brothers, it remains the amazing technicolour dream coat and they came down to bow before him in Egypt. Was there transparent justice in this case, and I just hope that no one were paid to work towards this conclusion. But even so, I still wonder why the judge would grant bail of R500, was it not worth more if you would emphasize your stand against the so-called corruption?? The judge proclaimed that another court may have a different approach and finding regarding this verdict. Why do I smell a jelly fish and temporary defeat if I may call it that?
Don’t braai to soon balls and dolls
2012/02/15 at 19:55
Thanks Inquisitiveness – accepted, but the morality of the argument still stands – if all three reject their “boikoting” then a message can and should be sent out if our local press are not to be tarred with the same brush.
Perhaps our local “newsboys” can join the clean governance drive the residents are fighting so hard to win – not forgetting they also live and have roots in Town – and put this one to the test, thereby sending a clear message to OM that the Town as a whole, business included, is tired of their attitude towards the people they have sworn to serve and things they promised to defend and uphold when taking up office?
……Or did they have fingers crossed when uttering these hollow oaths in the Council chamber?
2012/02/15 at 18:22
Fedup- 1 small problem with your argument re dual publication of adverts…. make that 2. Firstly, they can only boikot 1 newspaper at a time, and we have a weekly ad paper too. Secondly, as been proven time and again, they just dont care about the law.
2012/02/15 at 18:08
Charge april and his “gang of 5” who MUST HAVE KNOWN and certainly anticipated troubles for pietersen in this matter BEFORE they paid him to come back, and then paid him to go away – in a record breaking 12 months turnabout I recall and at a total cost to OUR COUNCIL FUNDS of some R2,500,000 for this this slight of hand and “giving their brother a place in the sun” – to quote our esteemed Traffic Chief’s interpretation of how our Statutory Law’s should be enforced.
And they made it look – Oh so legitimate, fair and proper!
This type of “slapgat” management and largess with ratepayers expectations of proper controls by our Council and the security of our funds in the face of any hint of a “doubt” or procedural “correctness”, must surely warrant a similar fraud and corruption investigation and charges, if not at least a professional mismanagement and contravention of the Municipal Management Act governing procedures by these “good folk”?
Maybe the ratepayers should appeal to the courts to invoke the Common Sense Laws, or better still pietersen and his cronies should just return their ill-gotten gains with an apology to the residents? (plus interest)
2012/02/15 at 17:40
Regarding Pietersens guilty verdict, OO should invite comment from:
1) Die Sakekamer
2) The two local papers
3) Both ANC and DA Councillors in ODN, especially Dianne de Jager and Mnyimba and the undertaker of Nokeng
4) Especially from Zille, Bredell and Theunsie, “the” bastions” of honesty
5) Whats happening with the Godfrey Louw case, demand action now
6) Comment from SIU
7) Whats happening with Mathyssens alleged double claims at Eden ?
8 Ask April for comment and after he has commented, how he thinks this guilty verdict will affect his own theft case
9) OO to pleeeeeze publish a list of other candidates who should also possibly be persecuted now
10) Some “juweeltjie” comments from OO will be the after dinner mint or cherry on the top. Who else can say it better than OO
I just pray the Appellate devision will not only apply their minds, but STIFFEN the sentence in the light of Dooms’s back ground, experience, position of trust, “shady” past conduct , unrepentant attitude and that more people will consider civil claims against him and other corrupt municipal officials,if justified. Once people are sued in their personal capacity, other corrupt officials will think twice X twice
PS – Will someone please inform Justice Erasmus of the latest, pleeeeeezze !!!!!!!! He might even reserve comment.
A year ago we warned Dooms to prepare for the “inside” of Tokai, i trust he gave heed !! Cant take much into a 2 X 2, unless he is with 100 others designed for 20. For safety sal hy maar vas in die hoek moet sit en slaap met sy oe heelnag oop!
Ai plaas dat hy eerder daaraan gedink het, hoop April en andere dink HARD daaraan!!
2012/02/15 at 16:42
I understand Joss, but at law as I understand matters, our council is obliged to publish “gazettes”, adverts, and other public notices etc in at least two local news papers – so if the two leading weeklies refuse to “tow the line”, how will our Council then meet its statutory obligations in regard to public transparency in their affairs?
Councils must manage and newsmen must publish – you mix the two and you have a “state owned press” like the old communist Pravda who wouldn’t dare say a word out of place against their authoritarian and vicious “regime”.
The local newspapers should stick to the news, aggressively interview and pursue “right and wrong” in our society, police and report on the public service without “fear or favour” and report the news as all good and proper newspaper men strive for in their search for the truth. – I think that what we want and expect as readers and from a free press that everyone is demanding in the face of Government’s draconian state security and press laws?
It is not, in my opinion, within their mandate when it comes to public affairs in our Town to decide what is and isn’t newsworthy just because they live in fear of their livelihoods from the very Council we elected to serve US – WOW CONSIDER THE CONUNDRUM and go back to para above which makes it even worse!?
This type of contrived tampering and overt influencing of the press, albeit in an oblique and underhand manner by OUR COUNCIL and their employees is, to my mind, a blatant “corruption” of our democratic process for which we pay both figuratively and literally in the long term.
As a result, it takes two very brave and doggedly determined “residents” and a mere blog, years to uproot the skulduggery and fraud IN OUR COUNCIL, which could have, and should have been made public news a long time ago through the regular press, and dare I suggest the very audits we pay for in OM!
Dis maar lekker who ‘n politikus n’ Rand kan rek ne’?
2012/02/15 at 16:03
Voorwaar ‘n baie donker dag as ‘n dominee in die hof skuldig bevind word, net jammer die raadslede wat saam met hom gestaan het word nie ook vervolg nie. Mens vra egter die vraag hoekom Mathyssen wat dubbel eise ingesit het by Eden en Oudtshoorn munisipaliteit nie ook in die hof vervolg is nie, hy het presies dieselfde gedoen as Pietersen, naamlik om te poog om die belastingbetaler se geld te steel.
Fedup – dit is so dat die plaaslike nuusblaaie nie regtig korrupsie en wanadministrasie wil uitwys en berig soos OO nie aangesien hulle bang is hulle word weer die munisipaliteit ge-boikot wat advertensies aanbetref.
2012/02/15 at 14:53
Ek kan net wonder of Godfrey Louw die MM van Eden Distriksmunisipaliteit ook nou aangekla gaan word omdat hy munisipale fondse gebruik het om ‘n politieke party se privaat litigasie te betaal. Hy is skuldig bevind hieraan in ‘n dissiplinere verhoor, welke skuldigbevinding op appel gehandhaaf was. Dis maar presies wat Noel Pietersen gedoen het, die enigste verskil is dat Mnr. Louw her-aangestel is as MM in Eden, met back-pay en al.
Dis ‘n blye dag vir Suid Afrika as korrupte amptenare aanspreeklik gehou word vir hul dade!
I trust the DA who reigned through this fiasco of criminal and malicious cover-up with added thievery and deception, take very serious note of the Court’s findings, and that their Leadership and Councillors do some serious soul searching and stop telling us “gee you think you got problems – you should see what we have to deal with every day”
You get paid to deal with it – so stop whining!
A mere local blog news reporter – OudtshoornOnline – unfairly despised and ostracized – nay rather excommunicated by an official Zille DA decree nogal, for the truth he publishes, is today vindicated.
Shame on you Zille, Bredell and the entire local DA Caucus for your apathy and the dismissive behavior you show the electorate, as you continue to pass yourselves off on us as a concerned and effective South African Political Party.
None of you deserve to be in charge of our affairs or even to have an opinion, let alone hold a responsible public office – and I mean it this time and am not just ranting. You lost the plot and my vote a long time ago!
Bury your head de Jaager, and move on please – you just don’t shape up to the “cut of the jib” we require for our elected representatives or evidence the leadership, political or management skills our Town’s requires.
PS – Shame also on our other leading local news”paper” for its lack of effective and incitefull reporting on this matter over the preceding months/ years – take a stand and publish what is really right or wrong and can the indecisive softsoap you so regularly pass off as news – earn your support from your readers, the local taxpayers and advertisers who stand for the truth and have Oudtshoorn at heart, not the Council and their sullen employees who appear to dominate your publication with their “fob-offs, gushings and gazettes” passed off ad-nauseum as news!
This article above, is the genuine stuff, on time, real time, better-than-being-there NEWS, “met meening!”
2012/02/15 at 14:51
Next Pleazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzze. Wies volgende mister Barrow?!!!!!!!!!!! Well done!!! Kom verby Dorris Day!!!!!!!!!!
2012/02/15 at 14:37
Dit is ‘n hoopvolle dag vir alle belastingbetalers dwarsoor Suid-Afrika! Korrupte amptenare MOET boet vir hul vergrepe! Meer nog, laat dit ‘n les wees vir onbevoegde en slapstert burgemeesters en raadslede. Hulle behoort ook vir hul versuim in hierdie geval aanspreeklik gehou te word aangesien die belastingbetalers deur hul nalatigheid en “laat Gods water maar oor Gods akker loop”-houding verlies gely het en openbare geld verspil was. Hopelik sal partye ook hierdeur genoop word om hand in eie boesem te steek en te verseker dat die gehalte van hul leierskap verbeter en politieke ampsbekleders beter geselekteer en geadviseer word.
Baie dankie aan manne soos Nic Barrow en OO, manne met ruggraat wat alleen moet loop om reg en geregtigheid te laat geskied. Ons is trots op julle! Hou vol manne en roei korrupsie met wortel en tak uit!
2012/02/15 at 14:13
Vyf jaar is in elk geval te min. As hy net 10 maande uitdien, wat se straf is dit nou eintlik, net om weer uit te kom en dieselfde te doen. Ek sê sluit hom toe en gooi die sleutel weg verwyder hulle permanent uit die samelewing. As jy kan steel dan jy moor ook.
2012/02/15 at 14:00
Hierdie is maar die begin van hopelik baie vervolgings wat alle munisipale amptenare sal laat regop sit, ook die wat uit Bitou padgegee het.
Diane De Jager en die raad se destydse optrede is ook maar bedenklik !! Hoop dit word ook verder ondersoek sonder Bredell, Zille of Theuns se inmenging !! Skoon regering !! Wat wou !!
Wanneer enigeen (soos Dooms) met sy godsdiens op sy mou rondgeloop het, moet die rooi ligte maar altyd flikker. Die R60 000 wat April onlangs goedgekeur het vir n byeenkoms behoort ook indringend ondersoek te word.
Dis maar die beginne………………???????
Graag nooi ek kommentaar uit van al diesulkes wat Dooms altyd so volhardig ondersteun het. Enige kommentaar ??
Terloops, hoe toevallig dat hierdie saak saamloop met die ZUMA verhoor later vandag.
Kom ons hoop dat Reg en Geregtigheid altyd sal seevier, sonder korrupte Staatsinmenging, anders is dit KOEBAAI vir almal, PUNT !!
2012/02/15 at 13:58
Nou wat nou KWB?
Dankie aan Nic, OO en Landros van Wyngaardt war gewys het dat bedrog nie geduld sal word nie, hoop dit is ‘n waarskuwing aan die Raadslede en amptenare van Oudtshoorn dat daar nie meer gespeel word nie. Ek glo dat die uitspraak van Landros van Wyngaardt vandag ‘n skokgolf deur die soustrein gestuur het wat hulle nie ligterlik sal vergeet nie. Soos Nic sê Reg en Geregtigheid het uiteindelik geseëvier en het die dominee hom vasgeloop in die waarheid wat hy veronderstel was om te verkondig.
2012/02/15 at 13:33
dankie nic barrow en oo. watter amptenaar is volgende ?
2012/02/15 at 12:49
I hope the current Municipal Manager and his Mayco is paying attention today, the community of Oudtshoorn is watching every move they make…
2012/02/15 at 12:26
……..Van der Schyff meen Pietersen het nie nodig gehad om die raad se besluit in twyfel te trek nie.
What part of “Municipal Manager” does pietersen and his legal council not understand……?
MUNICIPAL OR MANAGER? – I suggest the latter, which somewhere, deeply imbedded in this “obscure” title, lies the responsibilities and accountability to MANAGE, and not just sign bloody pieces of paper without a care, and then piss off for a free lunch after informing ratepayers “I am too busy to talk to you, and yes, in answer to your question, I DO OWN OUDTSHOORN!”
2012/02/15 at 12:13
Ja toe nou, daai arme hoender wat so ‘n lang pad moes loop om by die huis te kom “roost”, is eiteindelik by die huis – rus lekker ou Karel Kraai en wel gedaan!