w WERKSMANS ATTORNEYS DELIVERED BY HAND/E-MAIL Johannesburg Office The Central The National Directorate of Public Prosecutions: Advocate S Abrahams Sandton 2196 South Africa The National Prosecuting Authority Private Bag 10015 ths Mxenge Sandton 2146 Docex 111 Sandton 123 Westlake Avenue Tel +27 11535 8000 Weavind Park, Silverton va. werksmans.com 1 0184 enquiries@werksmans.com nal Prosecuting Authority The Director: Priority Crimes Litigation Unit: Advocate JP Pretorius Victoria & Griffiths Mxenge 123 Westlake Avenue, Silverton Pretoria, 0184 YOUR REFERENCE: CAS 427/05/2015 ‘OUR REFERENCE: Mr B Hotz/Mr } Gobetz/te/PILL38396.1/#5409706v1 DIRECT PHONE: +27 11 535 8106 /+27 11 535 8445 DIRECT FAX +27 11 535 8606 /+27 11 535 8454 EMAILADDRESS: — bhotz@werksmans.com / jgobetz@werksmans.com 12 March 2018, URGENT Dear Sirs URGENT - BROOKLYN CAS 427/05/2015 - SUMMONS IN CRIMINAL CASE: VISVANATHAN PILLAY, JOHANNES HENDRIKUS VAN LOGGERENBERG AND ANDRIES JANSE VAN RENSBURG 1 We act for Messrs Visvanathan (Ivan) Pillay, Johannes Hendrikus (Johann) van Loggerenberg, and Andries Janse van Rensburg (“our clients") in the above captioned matter. 2 Despite there being no express allegation on the summons recently issued against our clients, we have ascertained through media reports and enquiries that you three are individually and collectively responsible for the summons that was issued against our clients. Consequently, we have addressed this letter to you. 3 We respectfully draw your attention to Section 179 of the Constitution, Section 22 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act as read with the NPA’s Prosecution Policy. Werksmans tne. Reg. No. 1990/007215/21 Registered Office The Central 96 Rivonia Road Sandton 2196 South Attica Bisectore'S ron tchetsnan) & Andropods BA aronoft DA krto 1 Bot Lo Becker sO Sey AK Borman NN Bhengu Z Bladen HGB Boshoft GT Sossr Pirsetors ic Scon oon Se Burger Pe Clsand 3G Close Pe) Cotser C cate Morgan MN de vier: R Driman’s Facar b Gower 2A Gobets & Gootkn Ferre erent fcicsen MctIssonbal VR Hoaosky 85 Hote NC Jacobs Tange van Rensburg Nl Harduth G Johannes & July} Kelimeyer A Kenny eae a Citoran Woy ha Ketee krige, PU Kruarhe Ple Rows MM Leasing ELevanstan JS Lochner K Louw Js Lube BS Mabaso, PK Maboso ARCS Meter 2 o Rlang Set Moca € Morais PH Mosebo RO Matshwane L Naidoo Nig 1) Memane GPF Olver WE Ooshuzen 's Padayachy HC Wanaka easonce Pant T foter BC Poce AA nysinanad Rd Raat & Ramin. MDF Rodrigues (Rood BR Roothman W Rosenberg HL Scott MPa He Soaser es om 3s Smit BM Soyo Cl stevens. 0 Steyn 1 Stocsel JG Theron PH Tingle) Tater Trudpeon. DN van den Berg FR eee Means titan Mick £3 sen Tonge: J won Vic Atal Ri Woketeld OC Walker L Watton D Wegleski G Wicins 8 Wiehahn Oc Won: 8 Warns £ Wood OW Worsman-Davies Consultant NL Armstrong JOHANNESBURG # CAPE TOWN « STELLENBOSCH « TYGER VALLEYP1u.29396,1/ 454097062 woa018 4 Requisite regard having been had to these provisions, we have been instructed by our clients to bring the following factual backgrounds to your attention: 4a In relation to our client Mr Pillay 44a Between the dates 10 August 2014 to December 2015, a plethora of false and defamatory media reports featured in the media, emanating from within SARS and former SARS officials and intelligence officials, which sought to falsely implicate Mr Pillay in a long list of very serious allegations. Mr Pillay has consistently denied these throughout then and now; 412 In early 2016, Mr Pillay learnt through media queries of investigations being conducted by the DPCI and of an intended prosecution by the NPA. Mr Pillay addressed the DPCI through his erstwhile attorney on 26 February 2016, Mr Pillay offered and displayed his full and complete willingness to cooperate and assist the DPCI and NPA in the matter, but nothing seemed to come of this matter. Other than an acknowledgement of receipt, Mr Pillay received no substantial response from any party; 4.13 Mr Pillay again addressed the DPCI on 17 May 2016, three months later and copied ‘same to the National Director of Public Prosecutions ("NDPP”), Advocate S Abrahams. Mr Pillay offered and displayed his full and complete willingness to cooperate and assist the DPCI and NPA in the matter, but once again nothing seemed to come of this matter. No meaningful response followed from either the DPCI or NPA; 414 (On a Monday morning, three months later, on 22 August 2016, at approximately O9hS6, a letter signed by DPCI Major General MS Ledwaba of the DPCI: Organised Crime Unit, (dated that Sunday 21 August 2016) was delivered to Mr Pillay’s erstwhile attorneys, summoning him to attend to a meeting at 10h00, at the DPCI offices in Tshwane, three days later, on 25 August 2016 for “a warning statement”. This letter advised that the DPCI investigation, inter alia, Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015, had been completed, The letter put allegations to Mr Pillay which related to inter alia, the alleged contravention of "Section 3 of the National Strategic Intelligence Act 39 of 1994” (sic) and fraud. Between 22 August 2016 and 24 August 2016, several telephonic conversations and correspondence between the DPCI and NPA followed from this letter on behalf of Mr Pillay wherein he offered and displayed his full and complete willingness to cooperate and assist the DPCI and NPA in the matter. On 24 August 2016, Mr Pillay went on record to confirm with both the DPCI and NPA that the Investigation of Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015 had been completed, he denied the allegations against him and requested an opportunity to make representations as contemplated in Section 2 of the National Prosecuting Act read with Section 179(5)(d)(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. To this end, and since it was confirmed that the investigation had been completed, Mr Pillay also sought access to the docket Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015. These requests were denied for no lawful reason; 41.5 Mr Pillay then attended to the DPCI offices on 25 August 2016 as requested and agreed to hear the allegations against him and consider providing a warning statement to the DPCT or not. It was agreed that Mr Pillay would consider the list of questions posed by the DPCI and that he be afforded time by the DPCI to seek exculpatory evidence and other records in order to assist him in considering how best to respond to the warning statement. The DPCI refused to provide the list of questions or a copy thereof, and refused for the discussion to be recorded, and instead left Mr Pillay’s then attorneys to record each and every question and comment made In writing verbatim. Importantly, the questions posed to Mr Pillay by the DPCI, did not in any way relate to “Section 49(1) read with Sections 2 as well as 1 of the Regulation of Interception138396.1/4540870601 w Eno. 416 44.7 41.8 4.1.9 4.1.10 of Communications and Transactions Act 70 of 2000" or “Section 3 read with Section 1,2,24,25 and 26(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004", nor “Section 10 (b) read with Sections 1.2.24.25 and 26(1)” thereof or the charges as set out in the summons referred to above; Instead of honouring the agreement that Mr Pillay would respond to the warning statement by a later agreed date and before the docket would be handed to the NPA, the DPCI went ahead and handed the case docket to the NPA. Mr Pillay learnt of this, via the media that following weekend; On 2 September 2016, Mr Pillay addressed both the DPCI and NPA, wherein it was confirmed that the docket, Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015, was indeed handed to the NPA, and in the result, Mr Pillay began to directly address the NPA and in particular the NDPP, Advocates S$ Abrahams and JR Pretorius; In the result, Mr Pillay addressed both the DPCI and NPA, seeking access to certain records and evidence at SARS and directing the NPA towards same, such which only the DPCI and NPA could have provided him permission to obtain. Mr Pillay received an unsatisfactory reply to his request from Advocate JR Pretorius in this regard that did not advance the matter at all and Mr Pillay's request was rejected; On 11 October 2016, the NPA summonsed Messrs Pravin Gordhan, Oupa Magashula and Mr Pillay on Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015 on charges relating to the Public Finance ‘Management Act and the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 and fraud. On 31 October 2016, the NPA withdrew these charges on the basis that certain exculpatory evidence was not disclosed by either/or SARS and/or the DPCI to the NPA at the time when the decision was made to prosecute these persons. It must be stressed that among the records requested from the DPCI and NPA by Mr Pillay, the very exculpatory evidence that later came to light, was listed. This matter has been ventilated before in our courts and forms a critical part of a matter concerning an action brought by civil society groups, Freedom Under Law and the Helen Suzman Foundation against the NDPP, Advocate JR Pretorius and another. We need not elaborate on the facts here, save to state that the matter calls into question the conduct of the NPA, the NDPP, Advocate JR Pretorius and another relating to this clearly baseless and aborted attempted prosecution; More than eighteen (18) months went by, when, on 9 March 2018, out of the blue, the above-mentioned summons was served at his home, to appear before the Pretoria Regional Court on 9 April 2018 on charges “Section 49(1) read with Sections 2 as well as 1 of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Transactions Act 70 of 2000" and “Section 10 (b) read with Sections 1.2,24.25 and 26(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004”, alternatively “Section 3 read with Section 1,2,24,25 and 26(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004" which ostensibly relate to a matter referred to over the years by the media and KPMG South Africa, as either; "Sunday Nights”, or “Project Sundays”, or “Project ‘Sunday Evenings” or “Operation Sunday Evenings”. Mr Pillay notes with grave concern that Mr Lombard, who it is understood will be seeking Indemnity from prosecution in terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act, was instructed by none other than the complainant in this case, Mr Moyane, not to avail himself for a scheduled interview with KPMG in 2015 and to “feign illness". The effect thereof was that material facts known to Mr Lombard were omitted in the KPMG report including, inter alia, "Sunday Evenings". In this regard, Mr Pillay places on record, without any reservation, that co-accused, Mr Johannes Hendrikus (Johann) van Loggerenberg, had nothing to do with this matter.Puuggs96.1/@540s706v1 w 12032018, 4aad 41.12 4.2 421 4.2.2 4.2.3 In fact and as far back as December 2014, Mr Pillay raised the issue of the so-called "Sunday Evenings" with the complainant Mr Moyane in an endeavour to demystify it. Mr Moyane simply rebuffed Mr Pillay notwithstanding the fact that he was now aware of this issue. Mr Pillay is of the belief that it was only during the week of 15 May 2015, following upon questions being posed by the Mail & Guardian publication, that Mr Moyane lodged this criminal complaint under Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015. Mr Pillay further draws attention to a conspiracy between former and current SARS employees and other persons respectively known as "Project Broken Arrow" from as far back as August 2009 and "Operation Snowman’ in February 2010 wherein which these persons engaged in "organised efforts to destabilise, disorganise and ultimately create havoc and damage to the reputations and stability” of Mr Pillay, Mr van Loggerenberg and "that of the SARS as a state institution." There are at least three such reports in the possession of the complainant in this matter, Mr Moyane, as well as two line by line reports which sought to deal with "Operation Snowman". Included therein are annexures such as the disciplinary records of the primary protagonist, Mr Michael Peega and a sworn confession to the arresting police officers in Mr Peega's matter when he was arrested on 25 December 2008 for rhino poaching and the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Furthermore, we refer you to multiple formal communiques to the National Commissioner of Police between 2010 and 2014 in this regard. From these records, it is clear that Mr Peega sought "to merge with other individuals in order to ‘expose’ and possibly ‘take care of' IP (Mr Pillay) and JVL (Mr van Loggerenberg) and a host of other significant individuals in the NRG". It was reported that a so-called “report would be then taken to the ‘Old Man’ for perusal." ‘These reports, documents and evidence speak to the very matters at hand. Mr Pillay has previously requested access to these and other records in the possession of the complainant, Mr Moyane, His request has simply been refused by Advocate JR Pretorius. In relation to our client Mr Johannes Hendrikus van Loggerenbers: During 2014, Mr van Loggerenberg was made aware of allegations against him being investigated by the DPCI based upon allegations that had been made by Ms Belinda Walter to them. Mr van Loggerenberg then interacted with various senior officials at the DPCI in this regard. Mr van Loggerenberg offered and displayed his full and complete willingness to cooperate and assist the DPCI and NPA in the matter, but nothing seemed to come of this matter. From July 2014 to December 2015, a plethora of false and defamatory media reports featured in the media, emanating from within SARS and former SARS officials and intelligence officials, which sought to falsely implicate Mr van Loggerenberg in a multitude of very serious allegations. Mr van Loggerenberg has consistently and vehemently denied these allegations. During 2014, Mr van Loggerenberg submitted various protected disclosures and complaints to both SARS and the DPCI none of which have received any attention from the DPCI, all of which have a material bearing on this case. During 2015, Mr van Loggerenberg learnt through media queries of investigations being conducted by the DPCI and of an intended prosecution by the NPA. Mr van Loggerenberg then met with a senior DPCI official in Silverton and yet again offered and displayed his full and complete willingness to cooperate and assist the DPCI and NPA in the matter. Mr van Loggerenberg further tendered to depose to an affidavit (with substantiating evidence) to substantiate his version. This was inexplicably declined by the officer. Once again, nothing further seemed to happen in this matter.ru.s6396.1/#sco97061 w 2032018 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 In early 2016, Mr van Loggerenberg yet again learnt through media queries of investigations being conducted by the DPCI and of an intended prosecution by the NPA. Mr van Loggerenberg consequently addressed correspondence to the DPCI through his erstwhile attorney on 26 February 2016. Mr van Loggerenberg repeated his offer and displayed his full and complete willingness to cooperate and assist the DPCI and NPA in the matter. Nothing seemed to come of this matter once again. Other than an acknowledgement of receipt of the correspondence, his erstwhile attorney received no substantial response from any party. Nevertheless, Mr van Loggerenberg again addressed the DPCI on 17 May 2016 and copied the correspondence to the NDPP, and more specifically Advocate S Abrahams. Yet again, he offered and displayed his full and complete willingness to cooperate and assist the DPCI and NPA in the matter. Nevertheless, yet again nothing seemed to come of this matter. No meaningful response followed from either the DPCI or NDPP. Three months later, on a Monday morning 22 August 2016, at approximately 09h50, a letter signed by DPCI Major General MS Ledwaba of the DPCI: Organised Crime Unit, notably dated the previous Sunday, 21 August 2016, was delivered to his erstwhile attorneys, summoning Mr van Loggerenberg to attend a meeting at 10h00, at the DPCI offices in Tshwane, three days later, being on 25 August 2016 to "provide a warning statement". This letter further advised that the DPCI investigation into inter alia, Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015, had been completed. The letter made allegations against him which related to inter alia, the alleged contravention of "Section 3 of the National Strategic Intelligence Act 39 of 1994” (sic) relating to an Investigative Unit at SARS and the alleged offence of contravening inter alia, "Section 4 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004" (sic), relating to a crowd-funding fundraiser that he had openly been involved in over many years, named “Wacthizungu” (sic). From 22 August 2016 to 24 August 2016, several telephonic conversations took place and correspondence was exchanged between the DPCI and NPA wherein he offered and displayed his full and complete willingness to cooperate and assist the DPCI and NPA in the matter. On 24 August 2016, he formally recorded a confirmation from both the DPCI and NPA that the investigation of Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015 had been completed. Mr van Loggerenberg further denied the allegations against him and requested an opportunity to make representations as contemplated in Section 22 of the National Prosecuting Act as read with Section 179(5)(d)(1) of the Constitution. To this end, and since it was confirmed that the investigation had been completed, he also requested access to the docket under Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015 None of these requests have ever been answered. Mr van Loggerenberg subsequently attended at the DPCI offices on 25 August 2016 as requested and agreed to hear the allegations against him in order to consider whether to provide a warning statement to the DPCI or not. Mr van Loggerenberg was compelled to sit and walt for no less than 2 hours in a coffee room before he was seen by the DPCT officials. It was then agreed that he would consider the list of questions that had been presented to him by the DPCI and that he would be afforded time by the DPCI to trace exculpatory evidence and other records In order to assist him in considering how best to respond to the request for a warning statement. The DPCI refused to provide the list of questions or a copy thereof to him and refused a request for the discussion to be recorded. Instead our client's erstwhile attorney had to record each and every question and comment made In writing verbatim. Importantly, the questions posed to Mr van Loggerenberg by the DPCI, did not in any way relate to “Section 3 read with Section 1,2,24,25 and 26(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004”, nor “Section 10 (b) read with Sections 1.2.24.25 and 26(1)" thereof or the charges as set out in the summons referred to above.PILL36396.1/#5409706v1 Ww 4.2.8 4.2.9 4.2.10 4.2.44 4.2.12 43 4.3.4 4.3.2 Instead of honouring the agreement that Mr van Loggerenberg would respond to the warning statement by a later agreed upon date and before the docket would be handed to the NPA, the DPCI went ahead and handed the case docket to the NPA. Mr van Loggerenberg only learnt of this via the media that following weekend. On 2 September 2016, he addressed both the DPCI and NPA, wherein it was confirmed that the docket, Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015, was indeed handed to the NPA. Mr van Loggerenberg consequently began to directly address the NPA and in particular the NDPP, Advocates S Abrahams and JR Pretorius. In the result, Mr van Loggerenberg addressed both the DPCI and NPA, in order to have access to certain records and evidence at SARS and directing the NPA towards same. Only the DPCI and NPA could have provided him permission to obtain these items. Mr van Loggerenberg never received any reply to his request from the NPA or DPCI. On 11 October 2016, the NPA summonsed Messrs Pravin Gordhan, Oupa Magashula and Ivan Pillay on Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015 on charges relating to the Public Finance Management Act and the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 and fraud. On 31 October 2016, the NPA withdrew these charges on the basis that certain exculpatory evidence had not been disclosed by either SARS and/or the DPC to the NPA at the time when the decision had been made to prosecute these persons. Mr van Loggerenberg was not in any manner implicated in this matter. More than 18 months went by until 9 March 2018, when without any prior notification or response to earlier unanswered correspondence, Mr van Loggerenberg received the above-mentioned summons to appear before the Pretoria Regional Court on 9 April 2018 on charges of "Section 10 (b) read with Sections 1.2.24.25 and 26(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004", alternatively “Section 3 read with Section 1,2,24,25 and 26(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004” which ostensibly relate to a matter referred to over the years by the media and KPMG South Africa, as either; "Sunday Nights”, or “Project Sundays", or “Project Sunday Evenings” or “Operation Sunday Evenings”, Our client had nothing to do with this matter. The only time Mr van Loggerenberg was ever asked about this was in 2015 at the offices of KPMG South Africa in Parktown when he attended at their behest to inventorize media items taken from his old office at SARS earlier. In passing, following a break when the KPMG South Africa lead partner, Mr Johan van der Walt and he went outside and returned back through the main entrance, Mr van Loggerenberg was asked in passing whether he “knew of Sunday Nights”. He did not know what he meant and said so, and asked him to elaborate as this might perhaps assist our client in understanding the question. Mr Johan van der Walt then indicated to Mr van Loggerenberg that it was not necessary to discuss any further and the matter was left at that. Mr van Loggerenberg later read about this matter in the media. In relation to our client Mr Andries Janse van Rensburg Mr van Rensburg is out of the country at the moment, to return sometime later this month. We have yet to meaningfully consult with him; Between the dates 10 August 2014 to December 2015, a plethora of false and defamatory media reports featured in the media, emanating from within SARS and former SARS officials and intelligence officials, which sought to falsely implicate Mr van Rensburg in a long list of very serious allegations. Mr van Rensburg has consistently denied these throughout then and now;022018 1u.38296.1/4540570604 w 43.3 4.3.4 43.5 4.3.6 During 2015, Mr van Rensburg was requested to attend to (a) meeting/s with KPMG acting for SARS. Mr van Rensburg cooperated fully in this regard; During August 2016, Mr van Rensburg through his erstwhile attorneys, engaged with the Directorate of Priority Crimes (“DPCI") with respect to Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015 and offered his complete and full cooperation if required. Nothing came of this at the time; On 11 October 2016, the NPA summonsed Messrs Pravin Gordhan, Oupa Magashula and Ivan Pillay on Brooklyn CAS 427/05/2015 on charges relating to the Public Finance Management Act and the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 and fraud. On 31 October 2016, the NPA withdrew these charges on the basis that certain exculpatory evidence was not disclosed by either/or SARS and/or the DPCI to the NPA at the time when the decision was made to prosecute these persons. Mr van Rensburg was not in any manner implicated in this matter; More than eighteen (18) months went by, when on 9 March 2018, out of the blue, Mr van Rensburg’s erstwhile attorney was served the above-mentioned summons to appear before the Pretoria Regional Court on 9 April 2018 on the charge of “Section 49(1) read with Sections 2 as well as 1 of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Transactions Act 70 of 2000", which ostensibly relate to a matter referred to over the years by the media and KPMG South Africa, as either; “Sunday Nights", or "Project Sundays", or "Project Sunday Evenings” or “Operation Sunday Evenings"; Against this factual chronological sequence of events in relation to our clients, we respectfully draw your attention to the NPA's Prosecution Policy, and more specifically under the heading General, where an obligation is imposed upon the NPA to consider the version or the defence of ‘an accused person before a decision is made and the following is expressly stated: “The decision whether or not to prosecute must be taken with care, because it may have profound consequences for victims, witnesses, accused persons and their families. A wrong decision may also undermine the community's confidence in the prosecution system and the criminal justice system as a whole. Resources should not be wasted pursuing inappropriate cases, but must be used to act vigorously in those cases worthy of prosecution. In deciding whether or not to institute criminal proceedings against an accused person, prosecutors must assess whether there is sufficient and admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution. There must indeed be a reasonable prospect of a conviction, otherwise the prosecution should not be commenced or continued. This assessment may be difficult, because it is never certain whether or not a prosecution will succeed. In borderline cases, prosecutors should probe deeper than the surface of written statements. Where the prospects of success are difficult to assess, prosecutors must consult with prospective witnesses in order to evaluate their reliability. The version or the defence of an accused person must also be considered, before a decision is mad: This test of a reasonable prospect must be opplied objectively after careful deliberation, to avoid an unjustified prosecution, However, prosecutors should not make unfounded assumptions about the potential credibility of witnesses.Bogen 70 w The review of a case is a continuing process. Prosecutors must take into account changing circumstances ‘ond fresh facts, which may come to light after an initial decision to prosecute or not to prosecute has been made. This may occur after having heard and considered the version of the accused person and representations made on his or her behalf. Prosecutors may therefore withdraw charges before the accused person has pleaded in spite of an initial decision to institute a prosecution." [our emphasis) 6 Significant regard having had to the above, we respectfully and urgently wish to know: 61 Why has no warning statement been obtained from any of our clients in respect of the current charges sought to be prosecuted against them, prior to the decision having been made by the NPA to prosecute them? As you are no doubt aware, it is a procedural pre- requisite in a matter such as this to afford the accused an opportunity to provide representations and/or a warning statement prior to the accused appearing in court for the first time, 6.2 Why did the relevant prosecutors at the NPA not insist on obtaining warning statements from our clients prior to the decision having been made to prosecute them on the current charges sought to be pursued against them? 63 Are the NPA and the NDPP aware that no warning statements have been sought from our clients in respect of these charges? 7 Our clients deny the allegations currently being levelled against them and urgently request an opportunity to make representations as contemplated in Section 22 of the National Prosecuting Act as read with Section 179(5)(d)(1) of the Constitution. Our clients have every reason to believe that the decision to prosecute them ought to be reconsidered and will result in a decision not to prosecute them if they are afforded such an opportunity; 8 — Our clients further request that the above-mentioned summons be withdrawn with immediate effect pending the outcome of the process of allowing our clients to submit their respective representations and your offices sufficient time to consider their aforesaid representations. 9 In light of the pending date of first appearance as is evident from the summons, being 9 April 2018, we seek an urgent, proper and rational considered response from you to this letter. 10 Kindly urgently acknowledge receipt hereof. 11 All of our clients’ rights remain strictly reserved. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT HEREOF ONTHIS 737" DAY OF MARCH 2018 Victoria & Griffiths Mxenge VGM Building 123 Westlake Avenue Weavind Park, Silverton Pretoria, 0184