PRETORIA – A Pretoria businessman at the centre of a long-running fraud and corruption case linked to the branding of South African Police Service (SAPS) vehicles has accused a court-appointed curator of unlawfully refusing to return seized assets, despite what he says are two Pretoria High Court rulings ordering their release.
The curator, however, insists he is acting in accordance with an existing restraint order and has declined to respond to the specific allegations.
Kishene Chetty alleges that Shaun Williams, a director of GCW Administration who was appointed as curator by the Master of the High Court, has ignored two High Court judgments delivered in March and April 2024. According to Chetty, the rulings struck the underlying matter off the roll and required the release of assets belonging to him and 71 co-accused.
The African Chronicle has not independently verified these claims or reviewed the court orders. Williams has also not directly addressed Chetty’s allegations.
According to Chetty, the case stems from a SAPS vehicle branding tender awarded to his co-accused, Lorrette Joubert. The contract became the subject of an investigation launched in 2018 by Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC) investigators Suneel Bellochun and Dylan Perumal.
The investigation ultimately resulted in the arrest of 71 people, including Chetty, on charges of fraud and corruption. Those criminal charges remain before the courts, and nothing contained in this article should be interpreted as a finding on the guilt or innocence of any accused.
IDAC, which became a permanent unit within the National Prosecuting Authority through the National Prosecuting Authority Amendment Act of 2024, investigates and prosecutes serious corruption and complex commercial crime. The directorate was established following the state capture era and was given expanded investigative powers and its own recruitment authority.
Court records cited by Chetty indicate that the criminal case was struck off the roll on 25 March 2021 before being re-enrolled on 4 August 2022 by way of a J175 summons. Chetty’s legal team contends that the re-enrolment was procedurally unlawful, a claim that remains disputed and has not yet been determined by a court.
Court victories allegedly ignored
Chetty says his legal team successfully opposed an ex parte application on two occasions, resulting in Pretoria High Court judgments in March and April 2024.
According to him, those rulings effectively required Williams, as curator, to release the restrained assets.
Chetty claims that has never happened.
“These individuals have decided to undermine the court order and be a law unto themselves,” he said.
Chetty further claims that an affidavit by state Advocate Wilson acknowledges there is no legal basis for the curator to continue holding the assets. He alleges Williams has instead relied on Wilson’s instructions rather than complying with the court’s orders, despite being appointed by the Master of the High Court and not by IDAC or the National Prosecuting Authority’s Asset Forfeiture Unit.
READ MORE: Crime Still ‘Unacceptably High’ Despite Declines – SA Police Minister
The African Chronicle has not independently confirmed these claims with Williams or Wilson.
As a general legal principle, curators bonis appointed under restraint orders issued in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act are responsible for preserving assets pending criminal or civil proceedings. Any variation or rescission of such an order would ordinarily require a further court application rather than instructions from a prosecuting authority. This explanation is provided for legal context only and should not be interpreted as a finding on the conduct of Williams in this matter.
Chetty alleges Williams knowingly failed to seek such a variation or rescission after becoming aware of the 2024 judgments. Williams did not respond to questions relating to this allegation.
Responding to The African Chronicle’s enquiries, Williams said only that he remains bound by the restraint order issued by the High Court and could not comment on pending litigation or the ongoing criminal investigation.
He did not address Chetty’s claim that subsequent court rulings required the release of the assets.
Separate court challenge involving Chetty’s father
Chetty says his father, Krishna Chetty, separately challenged the same restraint order and was also successful.
According to Chetty, Acting Judge Leso found that an affidavit submitted by investigator Bellochun failed to disclose material information relating to the outcome of the criminal proceedings. He further alleges the court found the National Director of Public Prosecutions had no satisfactory explanation for that omission.
The African Chronicle has not independently verified these claims against the court record.
READ MORE: Sibiya Suspended as Madlanga Commission Opens
Chetty says he has since opened a fraud case against Bellochun at Pretoria Central Police Station, alleging that the J175 summons used to re-enrol the matter in 2022 was unlawfully issued because it did not comply with Section 54(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which requires summonses to be issued by the clerk of the court.
According to Chetty, a police officer informed him that the matter has since been referred to the National Director of Public Prosecutions for further investigation. That claim has not been independently verified.
His legal team also alleges it identified discrepancies in the court record, including the absence of a court appearance on a key date. These remain allegations and have not been confirmed by the relevant authorities.
Legal expert Nthabiseng Dubazana, commenting on the general legal requirements governing J175 summonses rather than the merits of Chetty’s case, said:
“A J175 needs a magistrate’s stamp and signature, so if that is not done, it can’t be issued or served in criminal matters.”
She added that cases of this nature highlight broader concerns about procedural compliance within the justice system, expressing a personal opinion rather than commenting on the facts of this particular matter.
Chetty also says he approached the Master of the High Court to report what he describes as Williams’s unlawful conduct but has received no response. The African Chronicle has not independently confirmed this claim.
IDAC spokesperson Henry Mamothame declined to comment.
“I don’t have a comment to your enquiry,” he said.
IDAC has recently come under scrutiny before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry over its handling of an unrelated corruption investigation involving a senior Crime Intelligence officer. During those proceedings, Commission Chairperson Justice Mbuyiseni Madlanga described aspects of an IDAC investigator’s evidence as “highly improbable.”
