REPRESENTATIONS TO THE SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

⚖️ REPRESENTATIONS TO THE SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTON

This section outlines the legal representations submitted to the Senior Public Prosecutor following the filing of a deliberately fabricated immigration charge. Despite clear evidence of visa compliance, the Investigating Officer refused to withdraw the charge and attempted to proceed to full trial.

These representations, filed on 29 June 2022, contain detailed allegations of procedural sabotage, evidence manipulation, and malicious conduct—both prior to and following arrest.

They also document SAPS’s continued illegal retention of evidence, and the calculated misuse of affidavits attributed to Home Affairs officials. All supporting materials are available below

JUMP TO: COMMUNICATIONS LOG

Why Representations Were Submitted To The Senior Public Prosecutor

The immigration charge was knowingly false, yet SAPS insisted on full trial—leaving legal submission as the only viable remedy.

The decision to submit Representations was not strategic—it was essential.

Despite clear and documented evidence that the immigration charge was false, the Investigating Officer refused to withdraw it and insisted on proceeding to full trial. My attorneys initially believed the charge would collapse naturally. But when it became clear that procedural abuse would override legal merit, they advised formal submissions to the Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP).

On 29 June 2022, Representations were filed—against legal caution and with full insistence on detail. I refused to redact serious allegations simply for political diplomacy. These submissions not only challenged the validity of the immigration charge, but documented the broader pattern of misconduct and retaliation.

Senior Public Prosecutor Representations – The Legal Turning Point

Despite knowing the immigration charge was entirely fabricated, the Investigating Officer, Sergeant Stevens, refused to withdraw it. He insisted on proceeding to full trial. My attorneys advised that the only remaining option was to submit formal representations to the Senior Public Prosecutor (SPP).

These were submitted on 29 June 2022. Though originally 85 pages, the attorneys urged several reductions—first to 55, and then to 15—citing strategic concerns over length and anticipated investigative delays. But even the compressed version carried detailed allegations of misconduct, corruption, and retaliatory abuse.

After nearly two months, the SPP formally withdrew the charge. The bail money was refunded. That chapter ended. But the broader campaign continued.

Even post-withdrawal, Sergeant Stevens refused to return my equipment. He claimed further charges were pending—despite explicit confirmation from my attorneys that such fishing expeditions were unlawful, and any evidence seized outside proper warrants would be inadmissible. The station commander even issued a written response affirming SAPS would continue retaining my property.

Knowing the malicious pattern at play, I had urged my attorneys to contact the National Prosecuting Authority after the first illegal arrest. I warned that Mr. de Swardt and his clients were likely to pursue further detentions when it served their strategy. My legal team initially declined, believing another arrest improbable. It was only through repeated insistence that certain elements of these warnings were incorporated into the representations.

Even then, the attorneys trimmed my submissions—removing dozens of critical pages and allegations. But I refused to allow full erasure of the context. If the NPA would not investigate immediately, I wanted misconduct on record.

The final submission, though abridged, documented:

The theft and illegal retention of my passport to prevent visa renewal
The July protection order obtained through perjury
The August arrest and prosecution, conducted illegally and unofficially
Obstruction of justice and inducements to deny bail
Time wrongfully spent in Pollsmoor Prison
Lies told by Stevens regarding my visa and Home Affairs data
The October prosecution, equally baseless
The illegal arrest of my housekeeper on 14 December
My own unlawful detention on the same day
Attempts to arrest Ollie Sokanyile, first failed, later successful
The secret, illegal raid at 16 Leirmans Road, masquerading as eviction
The armed SWAT-style raid on 14 December
Denial of my constitutional right to legal counsel
The attempt to disguise an eviction at 32 Fisherman’s Bend as criminal enforcement
False objections to bail on 19 December, rooted in Stevens’ lies
Deliberate delays to bail proceedings on 6 Jan, 2 Feb, and 9 Feb
Serial failure to supply dockets in all pending cases
Ongoing illegal retention of my passport into 2023, while pursuing visa-related charges
The post-arrest strategy to fabricate victims and frame me as a fraudster
The introduction of the bogus immigration charge
Retroactive affidavit manipulation to falsely connect immigration matters to earlier arrests
Continued seizure of my devices to block my defense in civil and criminal cases, erase exculpatory evidence, enable false narratives, and launch illegal fishing expeditions

The submission made clear that Sergeant Stevens intended to push the charge to trial despite incontrovertible evidence of its invalidity. He withheld the docket from both prosecution and defense. He ignored the immigration moratorium, the extension granted, and the COVID-era waiver—all of which were recorded in my passport and immigration record. His affidavit attempted to rewrite reality, omitting policies his own department had implemented.

The immigration charge had never played a role in the arrest—it was inserted retroactively, solely to justify detention and denial of bail.

The SPP reviewed all materials. After two months, they confirmed the charge would not proceed, and formally withdrew it.

But even as that charge vanished, the consequences remained.

It cost me another R450,000 in legal fees, and both my homes were taken while I was imprisoned.

No investigation was opened into the conduct of Stevens or SAPS.

The NPA appears to view withdrawal as sufficient resolution.

It is not.

FACT FILE — REPRESENTATIONS TO THE SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

When the immigration charge was filed, it wasn’t based on law—it was based on lies. The Investigating Officer refused to withdraw it, even when confronted with documented visa extensions and moratoriums. Instead, he pushed for full trial, refused to release the docket, and retained evidence unlawfully.

Representations were submitted to the Senior Public Prosecutor not out of strategic preference—but necessity. They documented how my passport was stolen to prevent legal renewal, how fabricated affidavits were used to legitimize detention, and how SAPS continued obstructing justice even after the charge was dropped.

The submission wasn’t just a procedural request. It was a legal indictment of how state institutions were weaponized to destroy my liberty, erase my reputation, and enable asset seizure—all without the burden of truth.

Home Affairs Documentation — Fabricated or Intentionally False?

The core immigration charge was based on affidavits attributed to Home Affairs officials—yet both lacked reference to my approved visa extension or the automatic extensions granted through the COVID-era moratorium.

Throughout that time, I remained in active communication with visa agencies to ensure I complied with all requirements. Toward the end of 2021, I submitted a formal extension application and was granted legal stay until 31 December 2021—visible in my passport. Assertions claiming I hadn’t extended my visa since arrival are demonstrably false.

Despite this, affidavits submitted on behalf of Home Affairs alleged I was unlawfully in South Africa as of March 2021—failing to acknowledge both the moratorium and the extension. These were not minor errors. They represented either wilful omissions or intentional misrepresentations of official policy.

The automatic extension program, widely publicized and implemented at scale, extended lawful stay through 2022. It would be inconceivable for two separate Home Affairs employees—at two different offices and in two different years—to be unaware of one of the department's most significant policy shifts in a decade.

More concerningly, neither affidavit referenced my approved visa extension, nor the automatic extensions in effect. If the Home Affairs database was checked, it would have clearly shown:

My formal extension until 31 December 2021
COVID-era policy continuing my lawful status into early 2022
No violation of visa regulations at any time

The attorneys reviewing the affidavits concluded that one of four scenarios had occurred:

A) The affidavits were forged entirely
B) Both officers were independently, but implausibly, uninformed
C) Employees were manipulated into providing narrow, misleading evidence
D) False evidence was induced through coercion, incentive, or external pressure

None of these scenarios reflect lawful conduct. And none justify prosecution under immigration law.

In the end, the misrepresentation of Home Affairs data was instrumental in justifying unlawful detention, obstructing bail, and prolonging reputational damage. Whether fabricated, manipulated, or knowingly false—the use of these affidavits must be investigated, and accountability must follow.

FACT FILE — HOME AFFAIRS DOCUMENTATION USED TO FABRICATE IMMIGRATION CHARGE

The immigration charge was built around affidavits attributed to Home Affairs officials. Yet none of them referenced my approved visa extension to 31 December 2021, or the COVID moratorium that extended lawful stay through 2022. The official database confirmed my compliance—but the affidavits ignored it.

Two separate officers, from two different offices and on two different occasions, submitted accounts that omitted the most significant visa policy in a decade. That wasn’t coincidence.

Their statements were either:
• Fabricated
• Intentionally false
• Narrowed through manipulation
• Induced through threats, incentive, or deception

Whatever the route, the result was the same: false evidence used to justify imprisonment, obstruct bail, and sustain an immigration narrative that Home Affairs’ own records refute.

Illegal Retention of Equipment — Prolonging the Sabotage

Two separate officers, from two different offices and on two different occasions, submitted accounts that omitted the most significant visa policy in a decade. That wasn’t coincidence.

Their statements were either:

Fabricated
Intentionally false
Narrowed through manipulation
Induced through threats, incentive, or deception

Whatever the route, the result was the same: false evidence used to justify imprisonment, obstruct bail, and sustain an immigration narrative that Home Affairs’ own records refute.

SAPS retained my equipment even after the immigration charge was formally withdrawn and bail refunded.

FACT FILE — SAPS RETENTION OF EQUIPMENT AFTER CHARGE WITHDRAWAL

After the immigration charge was officially withdrawn by the Senior Public Prosecutor, SAPS refused to return my equipment. They claimed future charges were possible—an excuse with no legal standing. My attorneys confirmed that such fishing expeditions are unlawful, and any evidence seized under these circumstances would be inadmissible.

The station commander issued written confirmation: SAPS would retain my property. This move was strategic, not procedural. It prevented me from defending myself in active legal proceedings, blocked access to evidence implicating misconduct, and erased my ability to maintain platforms exposing corruption.

This included:
• Documentation proving visa compliance
• Correspondence with legal teams and immigration agencies
• Property records and contracts
• Archived evidence of procedural abuse and coordinated retaliation

The seizure was not about investigation—it was about disabling my defense and deleting digital truth.

Procedural Weaponization: Bail Sabotage and Re-Arrest Strategies

Beyond the fabricated immigration charge, SAPS employed a broader framework of procedural manipulation—designed not to secure justice, but to orchestrate unlawful confinement and deny due process.

After my initial arrest, bail was made deliberately difficult. False affidavits and manufactured evidence were used to justify objections. The Investigating Officer sought to elevate a non-criminal visa matter into a fraud-based offence—triggering asset freezes, reputational damage, and denial of liberty.

The bail application itself was targeted repeatedly:

19 December: Bail was objected to based on knowingly false statements.
6 January, 2 February, 9 February: The Investigating Officer delayed the hearings by submitting additional misleading information—none of which related to the original charges.

Each postponement served a purpose: prolong incarceration, extend vulnerability, and allow time for coordinated asset seizures and evictions. The narrative constructed around the immigration issue was used to distract from the theft of my passport, the retention of my devices, and the broader civil sabotage being executed in parallel.

The Investigating Officer also refused to provide the full docket—obstructing both the prosecution’s review and my legal defense. This refusal persisted across multiple charges and hearings, despite formal requests.

While the charges collapsed or were withdrawn, the consequences remained:

Months of detention
Loss of two homes
Over R450,000 in legal expenses
Unrecoverable damage to reputation and stability

What began as arrest became a strategy. Each procedural step—affidavit, docket, hearing—was weaponized not to prosecute a crime, but to disable resistance, enforce silence, and frame a narrative that officials knew to be false.

FACT FILES: EXPOSING THE LIES, REVEALING THE TRUTH

In September 2021, impressed by my success in Camps Bay, agent Gail Broad offered me a lease on 16 Leirmans Road, a Llandudno villa owned by her cousin, Keith Broad.

The agreement was to renovate the property to attract high-end tourists, with a five-year lease ensuring I could recover my investment and earn a profit.

Below is a Paraphrase of The Section Within The Representation About The Use of Home Affairs Documentation, Staff, Affidavits, Etc.

Throughout that time, I was in constant contact with visa agencies to ensure I stayed within the rules and asked to be kept informed so that when it looked likely that the waiver would cease being extended, I could apply for an extension “DR8”. I did towards the end of 2021 and was granted a visa extension up to the 31st of December 2021, “DR7” " as can be seen by the passport. Statements that I had never extended since arrival are untrue.

Contrary to the Home Affairs Department's affidavits, I was under no obligation to leave South Africa on March 31st due to the automatic visa extensions. As these were extended through to 2022, I was under no obligation to leave South Africa at any point in 2021 “DR9.”

I cannot comment on the criteria for choosing which Immigration Officers are approached when providing information and affidavits about such matters. Still, it is concerning that the communications from the two Home Affairs employees do not refer to the waiver that included the automatic extension of visas covering all of 2021 or to my application for and approval of the visa extension to 31 December 2021, which would not have been given had I been in South Africa illegally in the months before.

The automatic visa extension program lasted a year and was one of the department's most significant policy announcements. COVID-19 has impacted the Home Affairs Department for the last four years. It would be concerning that even immigration officer was not aware of this policy, and it is almost inconceivable that two Immigration officers from two different offices on two other occasions were not aware of “DR12, DR13, DR14.”

So, it would appear that two unrelated Home Affairs employees were both ignorant of one of the most essential visas related policies of the last decade, the most important in terms of legislation about visas during the Covid pandemic, one that they would have had to be referenced dozens if not hundreds of times, that would have affected outcomes for visa holders applications and appeals, in hundreds of cases over the last two years. Two Home Affairs employees misread what the Home Affairs database says when checking a person’s file. Who both missed my actual visa extension of 2021, carrying me into 2022.

Both also missed the apparent note on that system, which clearly shows any official that the automatic via extensions and my extension carried me onto January 2022.

The Home Affairs database clearly shows no crime was committed.

The attorneys put forward three possibilities. At the very least, these statements and affidavits by Home Affairs employee were not impartial and were not a factual representation of the situation. As such, either

A) the affidavits are forgeries.

B)two entirely unrelated employees, based in two different offices and providing evidence in two different years, were both not just wrong but fundamentally wrong.

C) Home Affairs employees were manipulated into giving evidence in a particularly narrow manner or.

D) Home Affairs employees were paid, or induced or threatened into giving false evidence.

JUSTICE 3i_edited_edited_edited_edited_edited_edited_Compressed_edited_Compressed.jpg

VIEW FULL DOCUMENT

NEXT CHAPTER .....

APPEAL TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HOME AFFAIRS

The Truth Suid Afrika

Discover the untold stories behind the false headlines of the Media24 articles. Uncover the truth behind the fabricated content of those articles. Understand the motivation that powered the consortium's actions.

'DIRECTOR GENERAL' - READ MORE

Screenshot 2025-03-10 001101_edited_edited_edited_edited_Compressed_edited.jpg

Screenshot 2025-03-30 160439_edited_edited_edited_edited_Compressed.jpg

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

- Martin Luther King Jr.