Key witness admits confusion over signatures in Rushil Singh fraud trial

The key witness in the high-stakes fraud trial of businessman Rushil Singh stunned the Palm Ridge Specialised Commercial Crimes Court when he admitted under cross-examination that he may have confused crucial signatures forming the foundation of the State’s case.

Testifying before Judge Venter, the witness, who had submitted three affidavits implicating Singh and his late sister Nishani Singh in defrauding Investec Bank, conceded that he was not qualified as a handwriting expert and may have incorrectly attributed one sibling’s signature to the other. This admission cast immediate doubt on the reliability of his testimony.

Inside the courtroom, Singh remained composed in the dock, dressed in a black hoodie and matching track pants. With a notebook in hand, he took detailed notes as the case against him appeared to weaken.

The trial centres on allegations that between 2017 and 2022, Rushil and Nishani Singh used falsified bank guarantees, purportedly issued by Stanbic Bank Ghana, to secure over R150 million in credit facilities from Investec. The State’s case relies heavily on documentary evidence, much of it signed, to prove intentional fraud. But the reliability of that evidence is now in question.

Speaking outside the courtroom to The Star, Advocate Dharmeshan Moodliyar from Group 16D, who represents Singh, said the witness’s credibility had been “severely compromised” by repeated contradictions and inconsistencies in his evidence.

“This witness relied on multiple affidavits to build his accusations, but under cross-examination, the inconsistencies began to pile up. By the time we got to his third version, his story simply did not hold,” Moodliyar said.

He pointed to a key moment when the witness originally claimed Singh had signed fraudulent audited financial statements submitted to Investec. Under pressure, however, the witness admitted the signature in question did not belong to Rushil Singh.

“He insisted at first that the statements were audited and carried my client’s signature. When we pressed him, he was forced to acknowledge that it was not Rushil’s signature at all. That is not a minor discrepancy; it goes to the heart of the case,” Moodliyar told the court.

He added that the ongoing contradictions made it impossible to trust the witness. “If someone cannot be consistent about something as fundamental as a signature, how can we accept the rest of his evidence as credible?”

Moodliyar confirmed the defence will call its own handwriting expert to independently verify the signatures misidentified by the witness. He also argued that the entire case against Singh is built on circumstantial evidence, with no solid foundation to support a conviction.

As proceedings drew to a close, Judge Venter adjourned the matter. The trial is expected to resume tomorrow, with the defence set to continue its attack on the State’s version of events.

With more witnesses due to take the stand and the prosecution under mounting pressure, the outcome of the case now appears far less certain than when the trial began.

The Star

[email protected]