COURT DENIES COUPLE'S BID FOR LEGAL FUNDS IN ILLEGAL COAL MINING CASE

A couple said to be part of a Mpumalanga illegal coal mining case and who earlier had multi-millions in assets frozen by the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU), launched a failed legal bid for the release of R6.2 million of these funds for their legal costs as well as R149,000 a month for their living expenses.

Jabobus and Elsa Jordaan turned to the Mpumalanga High Court, sitting in Mbombela, as they claimed they urgently need this money to survive and to be able to pay for their defence in their criminal trial.

The Jordaans, together with thirteen others, were allegedly part of a syndicate charged with multiple serious offences of illegal coal mining and theft of coal from the State. Their assets were earlier preserved in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act.

The Jordaans hold dual citizenship in both South Africa and Namibia. They are also directors of various companies, including GNJ Mining. The AFU in Mpumalanga, in collaboration with South Africa’s Financial Intelligence Centre, the Namibian Financial Intelligence Centre, and the Namibian Prosecutor-General’s office, at the end of last year seized money in eight Namibian bank accounts to the value of about R52.5 million allegedly  linked to the Jordaans.

According to the authorities, this amount represents the proceeds of massive illegal coal mining in the Carolina area in Mpumalanga. The Jordaans now told the court applicants contend that the effect of these preservation orders is that they currently have no access to any funds or any unrestrained realisable property, whether movable, immovable, or cash.

The National Prosecuting Authority, in opposing the application, said the Jordaans are not being frank with the court. It was argued that the applicants have on several occasions failed to or refused to disclose assets and to repatriate R50 million which was transferred to Namibia shortly before the granting of the preservation orders.

It was also said that the couple failed to disclose all property interests and submit a sworn and full statement of all their assets and liabilities, which include assets held in trusts. The applicants, however, stated that they never made or received any income without disclosing it to the curator who was appointed to manage their preserved assets.

But the curator said this is incorrect, as live game was removed by the couple and income to the value of R524,752,50, generated therefrom, was not disclosed and remains unaccounted for.

The applicants, meanwhile, failed to give an explanation regarding this sum of money to the court. The prosecuting authority also pointed out to the court that the couple last year in another application asked that R3 million be released for their legal costs, as well as R293,349 per month for their living expenses.

They had subsequently withdrawn that application. It questioned how the applicants’ historical and future legal expenses have increased by R1.2 million and their living expenses have been reduced by R144,582 per month.

The contention by the NDPP and the curator is that it can be deduced that the applicants have been dishonest under oath about their real legal and living expenses.

The court, in turning down their application, concluded that the couple had not been frank about their financial situation and noted that they did not disclose their assets in Namibia. It said that it may very well be that there are funds to meet their expenses, which they are not disclosing.

2025-06-16T12:06:09Z