The corruption case involving admissions to the University of KwaZulu-Natal's Bachelor of Pharmacy programme has been postponed.
Image: Leon Lestrade / Independent Newspapers
Financial troubles and unresolved documentation concerns took centre stage during the Durban Regional Court proceedings on Tuesday, affecting the corruption case surrounding the University of KwaZulu-Natal's (UKZN) Bachelor of Pharmacy programme admissions.
The case implicates seven people, who are charged with attempting to manipulate the university's admission systems to secure placements for three students with insufficient academic qualifications.
The defendants include Salman Noor Mohamed, his mother Mirriam Mohamed, Muhammad Altamish Haniff, Preshni Hiramun, as well as married couple Varsha and Hiteshkumar Bhatt, alongside their son Bhavik Bhatt.
They are accused of offering substantial payments to Ruth Sekati, a senior education IT specialist at UKZN, in exchange for favourably altering the admissions process.
The allegations, dating back to February and March 2017, suggest that the accused proposed payments of up to R50,000 per student, which were to facilitate the admission of students into the competitive Bachelor of Pharmacy programme at the Westville Campus.
The charge sheet alleged proposed payments of up to R50,000 per student. Actual payments reportedly involved R50,000 for Mohamed's admission (split into R47,000 and R3,000), R20,000 for Haniff, and R10,000 for Bhavik Bhatt.
Charges further claim that no placements for Indian students were available during Bhavik Bhatt's admission period.
Defence attorneys raised significant deficiencies in the completeness of the case bundle, which was cited as a primary reason the pre-trial conference could not proceed.
Wesley Rogers, representing the Bhatt family, pointed out the alarming gaps in documentation and expressed his intent to engage with the State informally to identify the missing materials.
Rogers challenged the investigation’s methodology by requesting access to documents discovered during related High Court civil proceedings involving KPMG consultants commissioned by the university.
“In the High Court, there was a civil matter in terms of PIIA (Personal Information Impact Assessment) in relation to an operation that culminated in this prosecution. I have requested the information that was discovered in those proceedings, and the prosecutions have said that they have not been able to lift the same.”
Rogers intends to file a motion to compel the state to disclose the investigating diary linked to the case, emphasising the importance of the requested information.
Jacques Botha, counsel for Preshni Hiramun, echoed similar sentiments, revealing that he too faced documentation issues and had yet to receive payment for his services.
“Already from what I have been through, I have found missing logs and missing annexures, and these are from substantial witnesses; there seems to be quite a lot of things missing,” Botha told the court.
Meanwhile, attorney Sandeep Singh, representing Muhammad Altamish Haniff, confirmed that he had submitted formal requests for the discharge of charges against his client, reflecting dissatisfaction with the proceedings thus far.
State Advocate Siyabonga Majola defended the integrity of the investigation, underscoring that three separate dockets were involved and that procedural safeguards had been established around specific pieces of evidence.
Magistrate Dawn Soomaroo acknowledged the numerous outstanding documentation issues that prevented the progression of the pre-trial conference.
She ordered both the prosecution and defence teams to find a resolution to these disputes by March 25.
Consequently, the proceedings were adjourned until May 4 for a pre-trial readiness assessment, with the magistrate instructing Botha to clarify his funding status with his clients by the next meeting.
Additionally, she stipulated that the State must respond to Singh's representations by May.