Cape Town - In a scathing indictment of the eight accused men in the “Black Axe” online romance scam case, a high court judge has said the fact that South Africa advertises itself as being open for business and alive with possibilities is not an invitation to criminally minded foreign nationals to come and take advantage of the people.
Dismissing an appeal against the decision of a magistrate who denied bail to the eight, Judge Daniel Thulare said the country’s friendly and generous reception of its visitors and its lack of restriction, frankness and accessibility seemed to have been abused.
Judge Thulare said the men’s immigration into SA was not an enhancement of a necessary cultural exchange to contribute to the development of the SA economy and that the judiciary was sending out a clear message that, “SA is not a nobody’s country and has not been abandoned by its citizens.”
In May this year, Toritseju Gabrieal Otubu, one of the eight men charged with wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy, money laundering and aggravated identity theft, had his appeal granted by a different judge.
Six of the eight men have received formal requests for extradition to the US, but Otubu was not one of them.
Despite his matter having been decided already, Otubu’s name appeared as one of the eight appellants. The rest were Perry Osagiede, Enorense Izevbiege, Franklin Edosa Osagiede, Osariemen Eric Clement, Collins Owhofasa Otughwor, Musa Mudashiru and Prince Ibeabuchi Mark.
They are alleged to have defrauded several women out of an estimated
R100 million by forming romantic relationships with widows or divorcees under different aliases since 2011.
The case against the eight was that they are members of an international organised crime group, Black Axe.
Judge Thulare said the eight men had all exhibited dishonesty and the absence of strong moral principles and had “contributed to the disunity, division and destruction in the belief that people of African descent, in particular, have common interests and should be unified”.
He said the State had established the likelihood that the appellants, if released on bail, will attempt to evade their trial as well as the likelihood that they would attempt to influence or intimidate witnesses, conceal or destroy evidence.