Thai sex workers case delayed

[cheekyboy]

Thai sex workers case postponed

 

February 10 2009 at 11:25AM

Related Articles

 

 

The start of the trial of three men and a woman accused of violating the Sexual Offences Act for allegedly bringing 26 Thai women into the country illegally to work as sex workers, has been postponed for the second time.

 

This means that because of repeated delays in bringing the matter to trial, some of the sex workers have not been home or seen their families for the 14 months since their arrest.

 

The accused face charges of racketeering and money laundering if state prosecutor Val Lotan proves their guilt on offences covered in the Sexual Offences Act, including living off the proceeds of prostitution.

 

 

 

 

The women were allegedly recruited in Thailand, and entered South Africa on month-long visitors' visas.

 

When the visas expired, they remained in the country illegally.

 

In a previous court appearance some of the prostitutes detailed how they were forced to enter into a "debt contract" with their "employers", stipulating that they would pay them R60 000 from their earnings.

 

To ensure that they did not leave the country, their passports and return tickets were confiscated.

 

The women, most of whom are in their twenties, were arrested on December 15, 2006, in police raids at the After Dark nightclub in Cato Street near Margaret Mncadi Avenue (Victoria Embankment) and at an alleged brothel in Leeds Crescent, Pinetown.

 

While most of them were subsequently deported to Thailand, four have turned state witness and are in the witness protection programme to ensure their safety until they can testify in court.

 

Sensitive

 

Even the court-appointed Thai translator had her face covered in court on Monday.

 

The state was fully prepared to proceed with the sensitive case, and had lined up 25 witnesses.

 

At the start of proceedings the presiding magistrate, Farida Mohamed, authorised the execution of a warrant of arrest for one of the accused, Pongton Thiamtat (aka "Dan"), who had broken the conditions of his bail and whose whereabouts are unknown.

 

Thiamtat was allegedly employed at the club where the women were arrested.

 

The other three accused, Lionel Johnston (the owner of the club), Rannsaya Suwana-koop (who is alleged to have recruited the women to work as prostitutes), and Kogilan Mudaly, the alleged manager of the club and brothel where the arrests were made, appeared in the dock.

 

While Johnston's legal representative announced that his client was ready for the trial to begin, lawyers representing the other two accused informed state prosecutor, Val Lotan, that their clients had requested further particulars pertaining to the case before it went to trial.

 

Lotan countered: "At no point in these extended proceedings has a request been made for further particulars.

 

Accused one (Kogilan Mudaly) was sick last time, and the case was called off.

 

He has ignored the court's instructions by attempting to get an adjournment.

 

"He has a habit of changing his legal representation a week or two before a court appearance date. He has done this again, despite having had nine months to appoint new counsel," Lotan said.

 

The state prosecutor requested that the magistrate authorise an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the delay, which she called "unreasonable" .

 

"The state will be severely prejudiced should the case not proceed," he continued.

 

"Our witnesses want to go home.

 

"I submit that the accused (Mudaly) is playing games. He has no respect for the court," Lotan said.

 

Fairness

 

Quoting from the State versus Shaik and Others (2008), he said: "Fairness is not a one-way street."

 

She added that Lionel Johnston's right to a fair trial would also be in jeopardy if the matter was adjourned.

 

Addressing Mudaly and Suwannakoop, Mohamed said: "The prosecutor argued vociferously last time, too, that the state witnesses were ready to testify.

 

"However, you are entitled to the best representation possible. I will not call an inquiry today, but Mr Mudaly has a history.

 

"If this happens again I will call for a Section 343 inquiry, which might be prejudicial to you."

 

The accused are expected to appear in court for the start of their trial on September 28.

 

o This article was originally published on page 5 of Daily News on February 10, 2009