[EXCLUSIVE] Radovan Krejcir claims major conspiracy to keep him behind bars

Krejcir and his two co-accused, Desai Luphondo and Jan Lefu Mofokeng, as well as three others, were convicted in 2015 on charges relating to the kidnapping and torture of a man.

FILE: Radovan Krejcir. Picture: Christa Eybers/EWN

JOHANNESBURG – Convicted criminal Radovan Krejcir has now claimed that there's a major conspiracy to keep him behind bars which started after he paid R2.5 million to a high-profile politician's son.

In an exclusive interview with Eyewitness News from prison, the Czech fugitive says he paid the money in 2011 after being promised assistance with obtaining asylum papers but the relationship with the politician's son soured.

This allegedly led to a number of people, including senior police officials, framing him for crimes he didn't commit.

Krejcir, his two co-accused, Desai Luphondo and Jan Lefu Mofokeng, as well as three others, were convicted in 2015 on charges relating to the kidnapping and torture of a man.

Krejcir spoke to EWN about this so-called conspiracy and what he says are the real reasons he’s been moved from prison to prison:

_LISTEN: Radovan Krejcir interview part 1 _

Krejcir also speaks about the latest regarding his extradition case and his love for South Africa.

LISTEN: Radovan Krejcir interview part 2

Ipid says it is investigating the veracity of these allegations while the Hawks have not yet been available to comment.

The Department of Correctional Services has responded with this statement:

This is not new and we can confirm that all allegations raised by inmate Radovan Krejcir are completely untrue and tenuous.

The said inmate is classified as a high-risk offender, based on his attempted escape from lawful custody. It should be noted that the inmate has, on a number of occasions, brought similar matters before the courts, and none of these matters have been formally finalised. When he was in Pretoria, he withdrew the matter and tendered costs. He later brought the same matter before a court in Pietermaritzburg, which is still pending. The same matter is also pending in Johannesburg.

Presently, the inmate is seen by the department’s health care practitioners on a daily basis for his prescribed medication. He also has access to his lawyers, provided they comply with the prescribed policies and regulations for legal visits. Family visitations form part of the rehabilitation process, which the department promotes. The only time a member of family is not allowed to visit an inmate is when their security classification indicates a risk. The said inmate is treated in the same manner as all other offenders in the country. He was given access to a computer in a nearby office for his sole use, and also given access to a monitor that was placed in his cell for the sole purpose of accessing his court documents. Within a week, he was found using the device for other purposes; hence, it was removed from the cell.

The department has not ignored any court orders pertaining to the said inmate. In line with his security classification, the inmate is housed in a single cell which is the same size as other cells within the correctional facility. He was also provided a second cell near-by to store his court documents and other items.

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, as well as various international instruments, stipulate compliance with basic human rights in a correctional centre environment. As such, inmates must at all times be treated as human beings entitled to all the rights of any citizen of our country. This logically excludes those rights necessarily curtailed through the act of incarceration, or those that are removed as a consequence of the individual’s behaviour. In all such processes, adherence to administrative justice in relation to the management of offenders is of fundamental importance.

As per the White Paper on Corrections, the correctional system in South Africa should be subject to independent inspection. The Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services (JICS) facilitates the inspection of correctional facilities to ensure that offenders’ rights are respected, and the Inspectorate reports on any corrupt or dishonest practices in correctional centres. As Section 85 of the Correctional Services Acts states, JICS is an independent office under the control of the Inspecting Judge.