Cat Matlala Appeal: Court ‘Conceded” 2 Mistakes in Bail Rejection

(The Post News)- The state has conceded that the Alexandra magistrate’s court misdirected itself on the schedule of offenses faced by alleged crime kingpin Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala but maintained that the decision to deny him bail was not wrong.

Appearing before the Johannesburg High Court, Matlala’s defense was appealing the bail denied by the magistrate in September, who found him a flight risk and a danger to witnesses after failing to prove special circumstances under Schedule 6. However, the defense found that the magistrate had made the decision with the schedule 6 interpretation instead of the schedule 5 that Matlala was facing.

Schedule 6 or 5 Charges

The state prosecutor, who cannot be named by court order, insisted that the magistrate’s ruling stood on firm legal ground despite the scheduling error. “Despite the concession that the state made that the magistrate misdirected on the schedule, I did not make any concessions that the ultimate denial of bail was in fact wrong.

“And if the Court has regard to Section 65, the yardstick is still that this Court can only interfere with the decision of the Magistrate if this Court is convinced that her decision was wrong,” she argued for the state.

The state also argued that while the classification of the charges may have been mistaken, the magistrate had properly weighed the evidence and reached a reasonable conclusion based on Matlala’s conduct, risk to witnesses, and the seriousness of the offenses. “I would still want to refer the court to the well-motivated and detailed judgment given by the learned magistrate. In her judgment, she dealt with every aspect placed before her by both the applicants at that stage as well as the respondents. She started by analyzing the personal circumstances of the appellant.

The prosecutor contended that the magistrate’s subsequent consideration of the state’s case and the evidence that the state had put on file was the proper course of action. Moreover, the method of examining all of the evidence presented to her in a cumulative manner is perfectly acceptable.

Payment and Death Times Confused

The defense also argued the timeline of payment of co-accused Floyd Mabusela’s daughter, who made payments into the account. It was revealed that the payment deposited into her account came after the death of Mabusela’s mother, reiterating the defense case that it was for her funeral.

The state conceded that the detectives on the matter may have gotten it wrong. “It is so that the investigating officer referred to a specific time of death; in the affidavit it is indeed dated the day of the death, and the time that is indicated is 12 o’clock. So that seems to me the time that the death was reported, or that she made that affidavit. So the reporting of 12:36pm could well be the date of the reporting and not the actual death. I would want the court to consider that she made a bona fide mistake with regard to the report.”

“So to jump to the conclusion that she is malicious is just simply not the only reasonable inference that this court can come to. I concede now that the investigating officer may have made a mistake with regard to the time of death,” the prosecutor said.

Matlala’s Defence Argument

Meanwhile, Matlala’s defence advocate Lawrence Hodes argued that the magistrate’s ruling was fundamentally flawed and that the state’s own concession confirmed this. “The decision is clearly wrong and is even conceded by the state. For us to accept that is a mistake about the time of the death and time of payment, it’s the audacity of the state…but none of the circumstantial evidence shows the guilt of the appellant—they were merely utilized to deny bail,” Hodes said.

The defense maintained that Matlala can be placed on the condition of house arrest with the release of R100,000 bail. The judge, Elmien du Plessis, has reserved judgment on whether the denial of bail will stand.