Peet Viljoen argues social media remarks shouldn’t be used to deny him bail
· Citizen
The prosecutor in the bail application of disbarred attorney Peet Viljoen has argued that social media remarks Viljoen made about the judiciary were racist and intended to damage public confidence in the courts.
Visit betsport.cv for more information.
Viljoen has since rejected this characterisation in his replying affidavit, insisting that his comments fell within his constitutional right to criticise problems in the South African context, including the government and the courts.
Viljoen, 57, appeared in the Pretoria Specialised Commercial Crimes Court on Thursday for his bail application. He was arrested on 16 June by the Hawks at OR Tambo International Airport on his arrival from the US, where he had spent roughly 100 days in immigration custody.
He faces more than 400 charges, including fraud, theft, forgery, corruption and contravening the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, linked to the alleged fraudulent sale of 46 Johannesburg Property Company (JPC)-owned properties worth R27 million.
According to the state, Viljoen personally benefited from the scheme and poses a flight risk, a claim he maintains is unfounded.
Prosecutor says Viljoen’s remarks targeted judiciary
The prosecutor told the court that Viljoen’s own social media posts should count against him under the “any other factor” provision the court may consider in a bail decision.
Referring to comments Viljoen made about the judiciary, the prosecutor argued that the remarks could not be read as directed at a single judge.
“No one will be able to persuade me that this is not a racist remark and it’s not aimed at” the wider judiciary, the prosecutor said, adding that the comments appeared intended to damage public confidence in the courts.
Viljoen defends his right to criticise the judiciary
Addressing the prosecutor’s characterisation of his social media comments, Viljoen placed his own account on record.
“I have never hesitated to criticise problems in the South African context, including the governmental administration and the courts,” he said, insisting that his remarks fell within his rights as a citizen.
“I believe this to be my constitutional right,” he added, rejecting any suggestion that his comments amounted to an attempt to undermine confidence in the justice system.
Prosecutor cites flight risk
The prosecutor also argued that Viljoen did not return to South Africa of his own accord, but was in fact deported after being detained by United States immigration authorities.
The prosecutor told the court that Viljoen’s return should not be read as a voluntary decision to face justice, but as the direct result of his illegal status in the US being uncovered.
The prosecutor also pointed to Viljoen’s conduct after he and his wife left South Africa in May 2025, telling the court that the couple had initially claimed to be on holiday in Australia when they had in fact travelled to the US.
He argued that Viljoen had gone on to sell his property and relocate his family’s life to America, all while never disclosing his pending legal troubles to the US immigration court.
On the question of whether Viljoen intended to return to South Africa, the prosecutor was blunt, telling the court, “He was never coming back to South Africa.”
Immigration proceedings and family ties
The prosecutor argued that the transcripts from Viljoen’s US immigration proceedings showed that an American judge had refused Viljoen’s request for voluntary departure after Viljoen conceded he was in the country illegally.
He further maintained that this undercut any claim that Viljoen’s return to South Africa had been voluntary, saying Viljoen had only returned because he was arrested and deported, not because he wanted to return home.
According to the prosecutor, Viljoen’s own words to the American court showed he had no emotional ties keeping him in South Africa. Quoting from the immigration transcript, he told the court Viljoen had said, “I never want to come back,” referring to America rather than South Africa.
He submitted that this statement, combined with the family’s sale of their property and relocation of relatives to the US, demonstrated a lack of genuine roots that could anchor Viljoen to appear for trial.
Witness intimidation claims rejected
Turning to allegations that he had intimidated witnesses and court officers, Viljoen rejected the claims. His legal team argued that the investigating officer had misread legal submissions made during earlier proceedings as threats.
He contended that legitimate legal arguments about the consequences of certain actions had been misinterpreted.
Viljoen maintained that no one had directly accused him of any threatening behaviour. He claimed any such interpretation stemmed from a misunderstanding of ordinary legal argument rather than actual intimidation.
Old, withdrawn charges revived
Central to Viljoen’s defence is his claim that the state is relying on criminal complaints that were either withdrawn years ago or arose from civil disputes related to his diamond-dealing business.
“I now understand that criminal charges were laid in relation to these matters. However, those criminal charges were withdrawn several years ago,” his affidavit stated.
He argued that if he was guilty of any wrongdoing, he should have been prosecuted at the time of his alleged crimes rather than having the allegations revived years later during his bail application.
Judgment postponed to August
Viljoen said he was preparing to sue the NPA for R5 million.
The presiding judge told him she would only return to work on 3 August, meaning the earliest available date for judgment would be 17 August.
The bail application was postponed to that date.