Nafiz Modack trial: Defence says there’s more to AGU’s dealings with 2 co-accused than meets the eye! In the ongoing high-profile trial against alleged underworld figure Nafiz Modack, a defence attorney has raised questions over the dealings between the South African Police Service’s Anti-Gang Unit (AGU) and two of Modack’s co-accused, Amaal Jantjies and Yannick Adonis.
Both Jantjies and Adonis are accused of plotting to kill top cop Charl Kinnear, who was ultimately murdered in September 2020.
Defence Challenges the Anti-Gang Unit’s Role
Defence attorney Pauline Andrews questioned AGU Captain Franklin Stone in court on Thursday, focusing on his testimony about Jantjies and Adonis. According to the prosecution, Jantjies and Adonis allegedly coerced AGU member Ashley Tabisher into sharing confidential information about upcoming raids on Modack. The State’s argument also alleges that the former couple planned three separate attacks on Kinnear in November 2019 on Modack’s behalf.
However, the defence presented a different perspective. Jantjies and Adonis claim they were not acting against Kinnear as part of a murder plot but rather assisting the AGU as informants in a plot to arrest and ultimately kill Modack. Andrews hinted in court that her later arguments would delve into these claims, suggesting that “there is more than meets the eye” regarding the AGU’s interactions with Jantjies and Adonis.
Allegations of Informant Coercion
According to the State, Jantjies and Adonis reportedly used their positions to pressure AGU member Ashley Tabisher, obtaining sensitive details of operations against Modack. This information allegedly provided the gang with an edge over police efforts. The State’s narrative holds that the former couple orchestrated three failed attempts on Kinnear’s life in 2019. This angle is central to the prosecution’s case, aiming to establish Modack’s influence and coordination within organized crime circles.
Informants or Double Agents? The Defence’s Alternative Theory
In an unexpected turn, the defence suggested an alternate account. Jantjies and Adonis allege that they were working as informants for the AGU, not as collaborators in Modack’s operations. Their role, they claim, was to expose Modack and support AGU’s efforts to arrest him. Defence attorney Andrews has argued that this perspective significantly complicates the narrative provided by the State, indicating that the AGU may have had undisclosed arrangements or undisclosed strategies with the accused.
Andrews implied that she intends to explore these claims further, aiming to shed light on potentially concealed dynamics between the AGU and the accused. The defence’s narrative raises questions about whether the AGU’s operations were as straightforward as initially presented.
The Case’s Larger Implications
The trial has garnered public interest given Modack’s alleged status as an underworld boss with considerable influence over organized crime. The defence’s revelations suggest a potentially convoluted relationship between law enforcement and individuals implicated in criminal activities, underscoring the complexities of combating organized crime. If the AGU was indeed in contact with the accused in a more extensive capacity than previously acknowledged, it may have significant repercussions for both the trial and public perception of law enforcement practices.
As the trial unfolds, it remains to be seen whether the defence’s claims will substantiate the existence of these covert arrangements and how this may impact the final judgment. The defence’s upcoming arguments are expected to bring further intricacies into this already complex case.
