NPA seeks leave to appeal Omotoso acquittal
Nigerian televangelist Timothy Omotoso has left South Africa but the State is still seeking leave to appeal his acquittal on a raft of criminal charges.
Image: Facebook
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) yesterday argued before the Gqeberha High Court why it should be granted leave to appeal the acquittal verdict handed down to Nigerian pastor Timothy Omotoso and his two co-accused.
While Omotoso has left the country, the State is still pursuing the matter.
Omotoso and his co-accused Lusanda Sulani, aged 41, and Zikiswa Sitho, aged 33, had faced charges ranging from racketeering and trafficking in persons to rape.
The trial spanned eight years before the acquittal. Judge Irma Schoeman found that the State failed to properly cross-examine the accused and to present compelling evidence against them.
In its application for leave to appeal, the State asked the court to reserve six key “questions of law” for possible appeal.
These included whether the trial court had properly assessed the evidence, made the required factual findings, and handled “similar fact” evidence — intended to show a pattern of predatory behaviour — correctly.
The State also questioned whether the court had applied the elements of racketeering properly, dealt appropriately with claims of prosecutorial misconduct, and whether some complainants’ evidence had been wrongly dismissed for lack of corroboration, though other supporting testimony existed.
Advocate Apla Bodlani SC, for the state, argued that the trial court did not employ the proper approach to the evaluation of evidence adduced in a criminal trial.
Bodlani said the trial court had failed to make sufficiently clear factual findings, which “unduly curtails the already limited right of the state” to pursue an appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act.
He said the evidence pointed to a pattern of sexual exploitation that should have been treated as “similar fact evidence” to show a clear modus operandi.
But defence lawyer Peter Daubermann said the application was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the verdict and of what counts as a factual finding in law.
He told the court that the prosecution had misunderstood both the judgment and what counts as a factual finding in law.
According to him, the trial court had made clear and reasoned findings on credibility, probability, and the onus of proof.
He also said the State cited no passages of evidence, no portions of testimony, and no paragraphs from the court’s judgment to support their claims, he said.
Judgment in the State's application was reserved.