Panday and eight co-accused ask Durban court to strike World Cup case
The nine accused say years of outstanding disclosure have left them unable to prepare for trial, while the state insists it has been ready since day one.
Judgment has been reserved in the Durban High Court in an application by Durban businessman Thoshan Panday and eight co-accused to have the 2010 Soccer World Cup fraud and corruption case against them struck from the roll.
The nine accused argue that the state’s failure to hand over prosecution material has delayed the case to the point where they can no longer prepare a proper defence. The state disputes this, telling the court it has been ready for trial since the matter began and that it has offered the defence controlled access to sensitive material.
The application was heard on Friday and judgment was reserved. IOL reported the hearing on 18 September.
What the accused are asking for
The application is brought under section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows a court to investigate delays in criminal proceedings and decide whether they have become unreasonable. The accused want the case struck from the roll, with an order that the prosecution may not be resumed or instituted afresh without the written instruction of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Their case rests on a history rather than on the passage of time alone. The defence says it first formally asked for further information in April 2021. Further requests followed over the years, and the matter was repeatedly adjourned while the disclosure issues were argued.
The accused eventually approached the High Court for an order compelling the state to hand over the outstanding information. That application succeeded, and in June 2024 the High Court ordered the state to provide the identified material within 21 days.
The defence says the state then sought leave to appeal parts of that order, and that some of the material the state itself accepted the accused were entitled to receive fell outside the appeal and remained outstanding. They contend that material central to preparing their defence is still missing.
What the state says
Senior State Advocate Talita Louw, of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption in the National Prosecuting Authority, rejected the suggestion that the state is not ready. She told the court the state has been ready since day one.
Louw said the state had disclosed the required information to the defence team, including 31 interceptions and their transcriptions, and that some of the material had to be obtained from Crime Intelligence.
She said the state is concerned about protecting information and informants, and about the harm that could follow if the material were not handled sensitively. The state asked the defence to sign a memorandum of understanding to protect the data, and offered to provide a laptop loaded with software to listen to the recordings, and to release the recordings with conditions.
Louw also told the court the defence had not complied with court orders and timelines, and warned that the outcome of the state’s appeal could have consequences for every other interception in South Africa.
The charges and the people in the dock
Panday is one of nine accused facing racketeering charges that include fraud, corruption, money laundering and forgery, allegedly committed between March 2009 and April 2010.
The state alleges that Panday effectively controlled several entities that received payments from the South African Police Service amounting to about R47 million, and that this flowed from a corrupt relationship with members of the SAPS Supply Chain Management Division.
The other accused are former provincial commissioner Lieutenant General Mmamonye Ngobeni, former SAPS Colonel Navin Madhoe, former SAPS Captain Ashwin Narainpershad, Panday’s mother Arevenda Panday, his wife Privisha Panday, his sister Kajal Ishwarkumar, his brother-in-law Seveesh Maharaj Ishwarkumar, and his personal assistant Tasleem Rahiman.
The defence was represented by three senior counsel, Advocates Mike Hellens, Jay Naidoo and Jimmy Howse, and by attorney Ravindra Maniklall.
Why the case matters here
The 2010 World Cup was meant to be the moment South Africa showed the world what its public institutions could do. The procurement that surrounded it has since produced a string of cases in which the police service’s own supply chain is the alleged crime scene. This one turns on R47 million of police money and a set of companies the state says one man controlled.
For an ordinary reader, the practical question is the one section 342A exists to answer. A prosecution that cannot get its disclosure in order is a prosecution that does not start, and a case that never starts is a case in which nobody is convicted and nobody is cleared.
The NPA’s Investigating Directorate Against Corruption was set up specifically to carry cases of this kind, and it is the institution whose record will be judged by how this one ends.
What happens next
The court has reserved judgment. The accused remain charged, and the matter returns to the Durban High Court when the judge hands down the ruling.
Source: IOL, Judgment reserved in Thoshan Panday’s bid to have World Cup corruption case dismissed, 18 September 2026.
