In the affidavit, Ntlokwana reveals that she was recruited by Bushiri to assist with the Commodities Project, noting that she believed in him as a prophet and was motivated by his promise of helping others.
Image: Picture: WIKUS DE WET. (Photo by WIKUS DE WET / AFP)
The non-governmental organisation Right to Justice has called for perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Landiwe Ntlokwana, the accountant of controversial preacher Shepherd Bushiri, after the leak of her affidavit in the ongoing fraud case.
Ntlokwana, initially one of the accused in the 2021 case, has since indicated a shift to state witness status, raising serious questions about the timing of her testimony and the integrity of the legal process.
The NGO’s concerns centre around the potential implications of Ntlokwana’s sudden decision to cooperate with the prosecution after four years of silence. Right to Justice argues that this move could undermine the case and believes Ntlokwana should be investigated for perjury, given the inconsistencies and omissions within her affidavit.
They assert that her actions may have been aimed at shielding *Bushiri* while implicating other co-accused.“It’s deeply concerning that Ntlokwana has remained silent all this time,” said Siphesihle Jele, chairperson of Right to Justice.
“Now, she wants to flip the script, claiming to be a state witness when she could have spoken out years ago. We believe she is guilty of perjury and defeating the ends of justice by withholding crucial information and only revealing it now when it suits her.”
The case in question involves allegations of financial misconduct and fraud, dating back to 2021, surrounding Bushiri’s church and his Commodities Trading Platform. Ntlokwana’s affidavit, which provides detailed accounts of her role, has caused an uproar due to the timing of its submission, as it comes after the prosecution has struggled to secure a conviction in the case.
In the affidavit, Ntlokwana reveals that she was recruited by Bushiri to assist with the Commodities Project, noting that she believed in him as a prophet and was motivated by his promise of helping others. “I believed that he was a prophet of God... I truly believed that he was going to help the people and myself the way that other businessmen had never done,” Ntlokwana states in the affidavit.
She further explains that she was actively involved in the administration of the Commodities Trading Platform, admitting: “I put my hand up to serve in the Administration Committee for the Commodities Trading Platform.”
This admission has raised questions about her level of involvement in the operation and whether she was complicit in any illicit activities during her tenure.The leak of the affidavit has also prompted allegations that Ntlokwana’s decision to cooperate with the prosecution could be a strategic move to distance herself from potential criminal liability while helping the state strengthen its case.
Under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an accused person can turn state witness in exchange for immunity if their testimony is crucial in securing a conviction.
However, Right to Justice argues that Ntlokwana’s actions should be scrutinized, especially given the long delay in her cooperation. The NGO questions why she waited for four years to reveal what she now claims to know. They contend that this delay could be an attempt to obstruct justice by withholding critical evidence that could have led to earlier proceedings.
“If Ntlokwana was truly acting in the interest of justice, why didn’t she speak up when the case began in 2021?” asked Jele.
“Her recent decision to turn state witness seems more like a tactic to exonerate herself while implicating others. This is a clear violation of the principles of fairness and transparency in legal proceedings.”
Right to Justice insists that the authorities investigate whether Ntlokwana’s actions constitute perjury and obstruction, and they are calling for her to be charged accordingly. The organization is also urging the prosecution to explain why it has allowed a previously accused individual to shift roles in such a significant manner and whether this could undermine the integrity of the entire case.