Thabo Bester's bid for access to laptop struck off roll 'for lack of ...

Another high court has sent Thabo Bester packing after he tried to bring an application for access to the internet so he could prepare his defence in another matter.

Bester was back in the Pretoria high court on Tuesday, nearly two months after his matter relating to his dramatic escape from Mangaung maximum security prison in May 2022 was set down for trial next year.

Even in that case, an ambitious Bester tried to bring an application for better access to legal representation in prison. Judge Cagney Musi at the time dismissed Bester's “half-baked application” as it was not “ripe for hearing”.

This time the convicted rapist and murderer wanted to apply for access to electronic devices and material “to adequately prepare” for his deportation hearing.

The department of correctional services, minister and head of C-Max all opposed the application.

Bester spent the first part of the proceedings arguing that it was his “constitutional right” to access the devices and material, which the judge in Tuesday's urgent court application, who cannot be named as per a court order, quickly rejected.

“I request access to resources. This can be a device that can be easily monitored and managed and controlled without any security risk by the respondents because they have two [EST] members outside my door 24/7, highly trained. They supervise everything I do.

“I am showering in a cage, exercise in a cage and am completely by myself. There is no way I can access anything without them next to me. There are cameras outside my door.

“I am the most guarded inmate in this country, it is highly impossible that correctional services would not be able to supervise a device and limit access,” he said in his impassioned plea.

While the judge made a concession to allow Bester access to physical copies of legal resources — but not a laptop and modem — this did not appease the convicted escapee, who insisted that he had “visual evidence in the main application that has to be seen” and which required a laptop.

Bester argued that his main request was for an electronic device, even without internet access, as this would allow him to prepare for his deportation case.

The papers for this application were filed in July in the Free State.

He told the court the state had “trialled 90% of the main application in the media ... meaning 90% of the information is not accessible to me, I don't even get a newspaper. I don't have a radio, watch and don't even know what time it is. That is how I've lived for the past 16 months.

“I have no information, I am only allowed certain information that is approved by the area commissioner and through that, I cannot access whatever information I would feel relevant to my application,” he said.

Advocate Mosioa Mazibuko, for the respondents, asked the court to dismiss the application which was “self-created”. 

He raised the fact that Bester filed his latest application about a month after his deportation case. Not only that, the matter never sat on the scheduled August 16 date as “the respondents received those papers after the date of the intended hearing”.

“In July, the Free State application was launched and at that point, the applicant should have surely appreciate that he would need a laptop in the main application. As a matter of fact, he should have appreciated [that fact] before he launched the main application,” Mazibuko argued.

“The main application was filed without any problems and ... the applicant was able to prepare and file the founding papers in the current application. He doesn't explain how that happened, except making one statement that he has had to rely on family favours but does not articulate those favours. The point that I'm making is that the applicant has access to the court.”

Bester, in his reply, tried to request a postponement, after refusing the offer earlier on in the day, to allow him to get his reply commissioned. This was rejected by the judge, who reminded him of her repeated offers to grant him a longer postponement, if he needed one, to allow him to better compile his response.

Bester denied the urgency was “self-created”, saying there were “numerous attempts before the respondents” showing his apparently denied requests to get books.

“The application has been brought by a person who does not have representation. Once counsel dismisses the brief, I cannot come here and disclose briefs that have not been accepted. Every person has the right to take whatever brief they choose. I filed my own application and in that ... I requested the respondents to type my documents.

“At that time, I had no intention for a laptop or anything. I just asked for access to typing and it was rejected ... I [also] requested access to media briefings but they still rejected this. So I am not here asking that I be given a luxury,” Bester said.

The judge, in handing down her ruling, noted that it was not the first time Bester had brought an application of this nature and the fact that between the initial date set down for the urgent application and the one where the matter was finally placed on the urgent roll, Bester “not only failed to explain the more than one-month delay” but also why he “can't obtain relief in due course”.

“Insofar as his application for deportation is concerned, there is no urgency as the papers in that application are not yet finalised, no heads of argument have been filed and no court date has been provided

“Thus, on all views, the application before me is demonstrably lacking in urgency and cannot be entertained. As no costs were sought, no costs order will be made. Thus the order made by this court is the following: the application is struck off the roll for a lack of urgency.”

TimesLIVE