Goodman Goqo to Challenge Eight-Year Prison Sentence Over R70 Million Ponzi Scheme

From Conviction to Appeal: The Next Chapter for Goodman Goqo

Nsikayomuzi Goodman Goqo, the KwaZulu-Natal businessman convicted for orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme, is preparing to take his fight to the High Court. Goqo, sentenced to eight years in prison for defrauding over 4,000 investors out of more than R70 million, is challenging both his conviction and sentence.

His appeal, set to be heard on 20 October, raises questions about whether the Regional Court acted in anger, potentially influencing the severity of the punishment. Social media has been abuzz, with some expressing outrage over his crimes and others questioning whether an appeal could reduce his sentence.

The Anatomy of the Scheme

Between 2009 and 2010, Goqo ran Ingede Mineral Holdings, a company based in Hillcrest, promising investors a staggering 30% return over six months through stock exchange-linked investments. Contracts were formally signed, lending a veneer of legitimacy to the scheme.

At the time of his arrest, Goqo had been out on R50,000 bail, granted in March 2014, but the scale of the fraud involving over 4,000 charges of fraud and violations of the Banks Act, led to a high-profile trial and conviction.

Grounds for Appeal: Anger, Evidence, and Duplicate Convictions

Goqo’s legal team, led by advocate Simphiwe Mlotshwa, argues that the Regional Court failed to account for R5 million withdrawn from Goqo’s frozen bank account in early 2010, a key point that could impact the conviction. Mlotshwa also contends that the sentencing by Magistrate Sphiwe Hlophe was vitiated by anger, invoking the precedent of S vs Rabie (1975), which cautions that punishment should balance the crime, the criminal, and societal interest, not emotion.

“A judicial officer should not approach punishment in a spirit of anger… that will make it difficult to achieve the delicate balance between crime, criminal, and society,” Mlotshwa said.

The appeal further claims duplicated convictions inflated the sentence to a level that is “startlingly inappropriate.”

Questions About State Witnesses and Evidence

Mlotshwa has also flagged potential constitutional issues regarding State witnesses. Of particular concern is Victor Volcker, a forensic analyst who interviewed 3,496 investors, traced payments, and conducted searches. Volcker has since passed away.

The argument is that if his appointment was unlawful, the evidence he collected should have been excluded, which could strengthen Goqo’s case. Section 35(5) of the Constitution of the Republic Act 108 of 1996 provides that accused persons must be protected against unfair procedural irregularities, a point central to this appeal.

Other State witnesses under scrutiny include Johannes George Kruger and forensic analyst Mrs Gunnard. Mlotshwa claims the trial did not adequately address the constitutionality of their involvement.

The State Pushback

The National Prosecuting Authority has indicated it will oppose the appeal, with senior prosecutor Advocate Hazel Siraramen affirming the State’s intention to defend both the conviction and sentence.

Legal analysts suggest the outcome of this appeal could set an important precedent for how fraud cases of this scale are handled, especially regarding evidence obtained by forensic experts and the role of judicial demeanor in sentencing.

The High Court hearing on 20 October will be a closely watched affair, not just for Goqo’s fate, but for investors and the broader business community, keen to see accountability enforced in South Africa’s financial sector.

Whether Goqo’s appeal will succeed in reducing his sentence or overturning convictions remains uncertain. For now, the spotlight returns to the courtroom, where legal arguments over anger, evidence, and due process will determine the next chapter in one of KwaZulu-Natal’s most notorious Ponzi schemes.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com