Further delay in Danny Jordaan fraud case as co-accused enlists new legal representative

“The wheels of justice grind slowly.” That is a popular phrase that speaks to the ups and downs of the justice system. It also describes the pace of the ongoing case involving South African Football Association (Safa) President Danny Jordaan, who stands accused of fraud alongside four others.

Having last appeared at the Palm Ridge Magistrate’s Court in Ekurhuleni in November 2025, Jordaan returned to the dock on Wednesday, 11 February 2026.

The long-serving Safa president (who turns 75 later this year), appeared alongside his alleged co-conspirators. They are Safa Chief Financial Officer Gronie Hluyo, businessman Trevor Neethling and former acting Safa CEO Russell Paul.

The latter joined Jordaan and company in court for the first time in November 2025, after being arrested. They all stand accused of defrauding Safa.

The State alleges that Paul conspired with the other accused to commit fraud and theft by authorising Safa payments to Neethling’s Grit Communications (a PR company) for personal services rendered to Jordaan. This was during Paul’s tenure as Safa’s acting CEO, which spanned from September 2018 to November 2019.

Following this latest appearance, Magistrate Sheron Soko-Rantao postponed the matter to 14 April. This was to allow Neethling’s new legal representative, Leana Fick (appearing on behalf of his previous lawyer James Ndebele), to familiarise herself with the matter before it proceeds.

The arguments

Jordaan, Hluyo and Paul’s legal representative Victor Nkhwashu once again recycled his longstanding argument for the case to be thrown out of court as it was ruining the public image of his clients.

Hluyo and Jordaan’s arrests followed a search and seizure at Safa House in March 2024. Nkhwashu argued that his clients continued to suffer prejudice due to the ongoing case, hence they wanted it thrown out of court pending their review of the search and seizure. Nkhwashu revealed that this matter was set to be heard in late April 2026, at the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg.

“My clients have always been insistent on me asking this court to strike this matter off the roll. This is informed by the fact that the search and seizure took place on 8 March 2024. Then on 4 April 2024, accused one and three (Jordaan and Hluyo) launched a review application for the search and seizure,” Nkhwashu told the court.

“This was brought to the attention of this court, stressing the fact that the hearing in the high court is still pending. Thus, it will hamstring the progress of this current matter, which was enrolled despite the State knowing that there is a review in the high court,” Nkhwashu added.

“A person cannot simply be slandered and broadcast on national television, with publications all over the place, just for the State to come and say ‘We don’t care about that evidence and we can work without it.’ Then why did they go to search and seize? Which is an intrusive method,” he said.

“They could have just requested what they wanted, and it could have been delivered if their case was already solid before the search and seizure.”

State rebuttal

But State prosecutor Moagi Malebati denounced this assertion, telling Soko-Rantao: “The accused are still making arguments that were made almost two years ago, which is that their high court application will hamstring this court. They argue that until the high court has given a decision, this court cannot proceed. The State has always maintained that it’s ready to proceed with this matter.

“The disputed evidence obtained through the search and seizure warrant is not the only evidence that the State has and will use in its prosecution of this matter. It is merely supplementary to what the State already has. Its exclusion is not fatal to this matter,” Malebati said.

With Safa’s elective congress pencilled in for September 2026, the pace at which the case is proceeding means Jordaan will probably still be on trial at that time. Unless, as he wishes, the matter is thrown out of court. DM