R12m trial in Pretoria: media go to court over access

R12 million in alleged misappropriated state funds is at the centre of a criminal trial now being heard behind closed doors in Pretoria, and a coalition of media organisations is asking the Gauteng High Court to reopen it. Media24, Daily Maverick, amaBhungane and the Campaign for Free Expression have filed an urgent application seeking to amend an order dated October 14, which they argue has been applied as a blanket ban on press and public attendance at the trial of former State Security Agency officials Thulani “Silence” Dlomo and Patrick Mshatola. Daily Maverick reports the development, with further coverage at https://ua.news/en/world/u-pr-media-prosiat-sud-vidkriti-protses-shchodo-12-mln-randiv-daily-maverick.

The money trail matters here. According to the prosecution, the R12 million was obtained through three temporary cash advances tied to an alleged contract with Korolo Investment Holdings under Operation Project Mayibuye in 2015. The indictment alleges that the contract and invoices were fraudulent, and that the company had no agreement with the State Security Agency and received no payments. These allegations have not been proven in court, and both defendants are presumed innocent until a verdict establishes their guilt.

Additional reference context is available at https://ua.news/en/world/u-par-media-prosiat-sud-vidkriti-protses-shchodo-12-mln-randiv-daily-maverick.

The applicants’ core argument is procedural but with real economic weight: the October 14 order restricts access to specific evidence but does not, on its face, authorise closure of the entire trial. In practice, they say, it has been applied as a complete exclusion of the public and the media, and three days of hearings may already have taken place without any outside access. For anyone tracking how public money moves through state contracting, that means proceedings over a large sum of state funds are unfolding without scrutiny.

What prompted the application was an incident on October 16, when News24 journalist Kyle Cowan was denied entry to the courtroom after seats for the public had been vacated. During a break he received a copy of the order, but state representatives refused to hand over the application on which it was issued, citing classified information in the document.

The media groups insist that open proceedings should be the general rule. If a party wishes to restrict access to particular evidence on national security grounds, it should file a separate, substantiated application, and media representatives must be able to respond. Their proposed procedure would allow closed hearings only for specific testimony or documents where the court determines that disclosure is likely to cause harm. As an alternative, protected State Security Agency witnesses could testify under pseudonyms or behind protective screens.

They also want the parties to identify, within five court days, the specific portions of transcripts from already closed hearings that require protection, with the remaining parts made accessible after removal of data that could identify protected persons. For documents sealed under the October 14 order, they propose a 10-court-day window for filing applications to impose further restrictions.

The case reaches into the agency’s operational structure and its budgets. Dlomo headed the State Security Agency’s Special Operations Directorate from 2012 to 2017, while Mshatola worked there as an investigator and later as a project manager. Both men, once senior figures in an institution that controls significant operational spending, now face charges over funds the state says were channelled through a contractor with no genuine contract.

The court has not yet ruled on the application. Until it does, the question of whether a trial involving R12 million in public money can proceed entirely behind closed doors remains unresolved, and the balance between national security claims and the public’s ability to follow the case sits with the Gauteng High Court.