29 September 2026
Cape Town businessman Nadir Mohiudeen, accused of fraudulently selling off 42km of state railway line in the Eastern Cape, appeared without legal representation in the Gqeberha Commercial Crimes Court. Archive photo: Thamsanqa Mbovane
A Cape Town businessman accused of fraudulently selling off 42km of state railway line in the Eastern Cape appeared without legal representation in the Gqeberha Commercial Crimes Court on Tuesday after having switched lawyers for the seventh time.
Nadir Mohiudeen, who is accused number one, was arrested in early 2019, along with former PRASA Western Cape regional manager Mthuthuzeli Swartz, who was also briefly appointed acting CEO of PRASA Rail in 2018 while the criminal case was pending.
The case has dragged on for more than seven years. Mohiudeen and Swartz stand accused of selling off a disused Transnet railway line between Sterkstroom and Nqanqarhu (formerly Maclear) to Durban-based company Akisisa in late 2012.
Swartz cut a dishevelled figure in blue nylon tracksuit pants with a black, red and white hooded nylon windbreaker and grey crocs. He took great pains to fully cover his face with the hood and a mask as he left court, removing them only once he was a block away.
Former Akisisa general manager Adrian Samuels testified in March last year when the trial got underway, that Mohiudeen, through his company, Spanish Ice, had brokered a deal through Swartz to sell the rail for scrap.
Samuels stated Akisisa paid R1.5-million as a deposit before moving to uplift the rail, the logistics of which cost the company R3.5-million. The rail removal was stopped in early February 2013 by Transnet security guards.
This week was the seventh time hearings have been set down since the trial first got underway in March last year. Samuels’s cross-examination, which began in March 2025, has still not been completed.
The five intervening hearings were beset with Samuels being ill, Mohiudeen juggling lawyers, Samuels not being able to travel from Dubai where he now works, an application for virtual testimony to be accepted, and lastly, earlier this month, presiding magistrate Thabisa Mpimpilashe being ill.
Before the trial got underway last year, it was delayed by Mohiudeen changing lawyers, attempts to obtain court transcripts, an unsuccessful application by Swartz for a separation of trials, and an application to the high court by Mohiudeen for a review of magistrate Nolitha Bara’s dismissal of his request for further and better particulars of the case against him.
It took two years, from December 2022 to December 2024, before the high court review application was heard and dismissed. Most of that delay was due to the length of time it took to set a hearing for the matter, but it was also caused by Mohiudeen appearing without legal representation. At that high court hearing, he told Judge Avinash Govindjee and Acting Judge Nicholas Mullins that he had tried to get legal representation from Legal Aid. Judge Govindjee noted Legal Aid turned down his application on the basis that it had “no real prospects of success”.
On the first day of the last criminal case hearing in May, the court heard that attorneys YG & Associates had withdrawn from representing Mohiudeen due to non-payment of fees.
However, the following day, advocate Cheryl Sjoberg appeared for Mohiudeen on instruction of YG & Associates, and the state continued with an application to allow for virtual cross-examination of Samuels and testimony by other witnesses, as many were outside the country and money had already been wasted by the state in arranging for them to be in court only for further postponements to occur.
The application for virtual testimony was granted by Mpimpilashe on 9 June.
On Tuesday, Mpimpilashe expressed frustration at Mohiudeen appearing once again without legal representation.
According to state prosecutor Gerrit van der Merwe, YG & Associates had withdrawn as attorneys of record for Mohiudeen on 24 August after being advised by East London firm Magqabi Seth Zita (MSZ) Attorneys that Mohiudeen had instructed them to represent him.
However, on 26 August, MSZ Attorneys informed the state that they would not be representing Mohiudeen as the “client appears unable to honour his financial undertaking to us”.
In court, Mohiudeen, smartly dressed in a blue blazer and dress pants, with a pale open-collared shirt and black sneakers, said he had since approached his original attorney, Henry van Breda, to represent him, but he was unavailable on the dates set for the hearing.
He claimed to have fully paid his attorneys and had come prepared for the continuation of the trial.
After having berated Mohiudeen for not taking the court seriously, and having taken note that the court had twice issued warnings that it would proceed if he failed to obtain legal representation, Mpimpilashe said she would rule on how to proceed on Wednesday morning.
She warned Mohiudeen to “be ready for any eventuality”.
Swartz was represented by advocate Mzwamadoda Mnyani, instructed by attorney Julian Lindor from BNI Attorneys.