Durban businessman Thoshan Panday is set to appear in the Durban High Court on Friday, where the court will consider whether to dismiss the criminal case against him which dates back to 2010 on the grounds that it has been plagued by unreasonable delays.
Panday has filed papers requesting judicial intervention and asking that the case be thrown out entirely. He was originally arrested over alleged procurement irregularities linked to accommodation arranged for police officers during the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and currently faces charges including racketeering and fraud.
The application was brought under section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows a court to examine delays in criminal proceedings and determine whether they’ve crossed the line into being unreasonable.
A case that has dragged on for years
The proceedings stem from events alleged to have taken place in 2010, but Panday was only arrested in October 2020 — and the matter has remained unresolved without a trial ever commencing.
According to his application, the defence’s central grievance is the State’s prolonged and, in their view, unreasonable delay in disclosing information and material Panday needed to properly prepare his case. Court papers state that the defence first formally requested further information back in April 2021, with numerous follow-up requests made in the years since, and the matter repeatedly postponed in efforts to resolve the outstanding disclosure issues.
Eventually, Panday approached the High Court for an order compelling the State to hand over the outstanding material — an application that succeeded, resulting in a June 2024 court order requiring the State to provide the specified information within 21 days.
State appeal, continued outstanding material
The court papers allege that the State subsequently sought leave to appeal parts of that order. Crucially, the defence argues that some material — which the State itself had already conceded the defence was entitled to receive — fell outside the scope of that appeal, yet remained undisclosed regardless.
“The defence case is therefore not based simply upon the passage of time. It is based upon the history of the proceedings, the repeated attempts by the accused to obtain disclosure, the orders made by the court, the subsequent appeal process and the continuing effect of the outstanding disclosure on the accused’s ability to prepare for trial,” the court document states.
Panday is asking the court, under section 342A(3)(c), to strike the criminal proceedings from the roll entirely and to order that the prosecution cannot be resumed or reinstituted without the written authorization of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
He will be represented by three senior counsel — Advocates Mike Hellens, Jay Naidoo and Jimmy Howse.
“Anyone in this situation will find it takes a toll on their health. I have been trying to clear my name for years,” Panday said.