Judge debunks Porritt’s Stalingrad strategy

Last month, Judge Brian Spilg, sitting in the High Court in Pretoria, handed down a judgment scrutinising an application by Tigon-accused Gary Porritt for a postponement of the long-running criminal trial in which he and his co-accused, Susan Bennett, are representing themselves.

Porritt and Bennett are defending themselves against more than 3 000 charges, including contraventions of the Companies Act, Income Tax Act and Stock Exchange Control Act, as well as fraud and racketeering.

Read: Who are Tigon’s Porritt and Bennett?

The trial began in 2005 before Judge Geraldine Borchers, who recused herself from the matter in 2011.

Judge Spilg has also faced numerous applications for his recusal, which he refused. In November 2022, the Constitutional Court dismissed an application by Bennett challenging his 2020 refusal to recuse himself.

The interest of justice and Stalingrad

In his judgment, Spilg cited a May 2026 judgment by KwaZulu-Natal Judge Nkosinathi Chili in the long-running Zuma and Thales trial:

“The term ‘Stalingrad defence’ has become a term of art in the armoury of criminal defence lawyers. By allowing criminal trials to be postponed pending approaches to the civil courts, justice is delayed and the speedy trials for which the Constitution provides do not take place.”

ADVERTISEMENT

CONTINUE READING BELOW

In late October 2025 Spilg gave directions in order to ensure that the trial proceed without unnecessary delay.

These included requiring the accused to issue subpoenas timeously to prevent delays between the evidence of their witnesses.

Read: Tigon trial: Porritt and Bennett stuck with same judge

In Porritt’s latest application for a postponement, he told the court that he wanted to depart from the criminal-law precepts which require an accused person, if they decide to mount a defence to the charges, to testify first, whereafter their own witnesses could be called.

He told the court he anticipated to call about 15 witnesses in his defence, perhaps more, including the current and former commissioners of the South African Revenue Service (Sars).

Porritt also told the judge that the leading of evidence of his and Bennet’s witnesses would take five years, after which his and Bennett’s own testimony would take a further seven years.

Read:

Sorry Jacob, Gary has already tried that!
Tigon: Porritt, Bennett and the ‘Zuma principle’

Judge Spilg, in analysing the criminal-law provisions, stated that if his interpretation of the law were wrong, there was “an umbrella consideration, which could put the rights of the accused in contest with other considerations, namely, the interests of the state, the public at large, and that the administration of justice is not rendered ineffective and brought into disrepute, or that the public’s faith in the effectiveness of the judicial system and the dispensing of justice, is not undermined or placed in ridicule”.

Spilg said that in the absence of good cause, and given the documentation before the court, the postponement could not be granted.

Twenty years on, the accused are now in their mid-70s

Spilg noted that, given the age of both accused and his own age (all are past their mid-70s), “in considering the risk of there being no finality, despite the case having commenced twenty years ago, the evidence has been going for the past ten years, with an expectation of another five years, according to Porritt”.

ADVERTISEMENT:

CONTINUE READING BELOW

This does not even factor in the seven years that Porritt expects his and Bennett’s own evidence and cross-examination will take, after the defence witnesses have completed their five years of testimony.

Read: Tigon trial: ‘Horns and halos’ may put Bennett behind bars

Judge Spilg also noted that the question at this stage was not whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

However, “the court has found that the prosecution has demonstrated that it has a prima facie case against Porritt and that examples had been given to Porritt of certain material which impact on the version that he has given”.

“In all the circumstances the application for a postponement and the contention that his calling all possible witnesses before electing whether to testify or not, is a stratagem.

“It is vexatious,” said Spilg.

“The exercise of these rights is done for an ulterior purpose and is clearly vexatious in the absence of good cause being shown.”

Read Moneyweb’s full coverage of the Tigon case here.

#Judge #debunks #Porritts #Stalingrad #strategy