Attempted murder accused Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala remains behind bars after the Johannesburg high court dismissed his appeal to overturn the denial of bail by the Alexandra magistrate’s court.
Matlala was denied bail by the magistrate’s court in September after the court found he was a flight risk and ruled in the state’s favour, keeping him in custody.
The High Court made the same finding as the lower court, despite noting that the magistrate’s court had made an error by citing the wrong charge schedule in its ruling. This means he remains in custody.
The magistrate’s court referred to Matlala’s charge as schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Schedule 6 deals with planned murder, but Matlala faces attempted murder charges.
“Allowing the bail application to proceed in the wrong format (a schedule 6-prepared affidavit when it should have been a schedule 5) is a recipe for confusion, which did occur, and must never be allowed by any presiding officer in bail proceedings,” the High Court judgment read, noting the error despite the magistrate having written “a well-considered judgment”.
The High Court considered the case on the premise that a detained person does not have an automatic right to be released on bail; instead, the burden is on the accused to establish that the interests of justice permit their release.
The state argued Matlala was a flight risk and that he had a fraudulent Eswatini identity document with the name Vusimuzi Dlamini, which he denied.
The state is building a case of 11 counts of attempted murder against Matlala, which he allegedly organised, including the attempted murder of taxi boss Joe Sibanyoni and that of actress Tebogo Thobejane.
“I am unable to differ with her findings in the judgment made in regard to the appellant [Matlala] being a flight risk and specifically the conclusion where it was stated, ‘The applicant (appellant) has both the means and the potential opportunity to evade trial,’” the High Court order read.
The High Court found the magistrate used the “exceptional circumstances” onus and not the correct one, which would have been the “interests of justice” onus, in denying bail.
Despite the misdirection, the High Court found that if the correct onus had been used, the same conclusion would have been reached.
“My finding is that despite the regional court magistrate using the wrong onus to decide this matter, which was a misdirection, using the correct onus (“interests of justice”) will not disturb most of the rulings she made.
“I conclude that on a balance of probability, the interest of justice will not be served by the release of the appellant [Matlala]. The appeal against the denial of bail by the court a quo is dismissed.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.