The accused in the Krion pyramid investment scheme trial have accused several civil judges, including judges from the Supreme Court of Appeal, of "defaming" them.

This emerged in argument by counsel for one of the accused, Willem Pelser, on Monday in an application in the Pretoria High Court for an order to permanently stay his prosecution and that of his fellow accused.

Pelser and Marietjie and Henry Prinsloo, Maria and Gerrit Lemstra, and Izabel and Hendrik Engelbrecht, were arrested in 1992. They received a charge sheet containing 218 683 charges earlier this year, but have yet to plead.

They face a range of charges, including racketeering, money laundering, fraud, theft and contravening the Bank Act and Companies Act.

Pelser's advocate, W.A Smit, argued that the opinions expressed by judges in four civil matters concerning the investment scheme in the High Court, Appeal Court and Tax Court violated the accused's Constitutional rights.

He claimed the opinions expressed in those rulings violated their right to a fair trial, to be presumed innocent, to remain silent and not to testify during the criminal proceedings and to appeal any findings in the criminal trial.

A violation of rights?

Smit argued that the facts adjudicated in the civil cases relied on substantially similar facts as the allegations in their criminal trial.

The findings violated their right to be presumed innocent and to have a fair trial as they were now clearly presumed to be guilty in respect of numerous of the counts.

"It was unfair for a court of law to publish detailed defamatory findings concerning the group in absentia on some of the main issues to be raised in their pending criminal trial.

"The conduct violated their legally recognised fundamental rights.

"The findings tend to prejudice the outcome of the criminal case and consequently violate the right to a fair trial," Smit said.

David Broughton, for the State, said he had rarely encountered a more fundamentally flawed, ill-conceived, contemptuous, vexatious, highly contrived and spurious application as that of the application.

He said the applicant was actually trying to review the civil court rulings and the only forum now open to them was the Constitutional Court.

"It is humbly contended that the application is a blatant and flagrant abuse of due process and is calculated at bringing the judicial system into disrepute and delaying unnecessarily the commencement of the criminal trial," he added.

Judge President Bernard Ngoepe reserved judgment.

Sapa