- The court has discharged the urgent order that had frozen the prosecution, restoring the NPA’s constitutional authority to charge.
- The judge finds that an accused has no right to see or respond to every representation made to prosecutors before a decision is made.
- Reputational harm and career damage are ordinary consequences of prosecution and cannot justify stopping a criminal trial.
Senior advocate Roelof du Plessis will now face attempted murder charges after the High Court in Pretoria scrapped the urgent interdict that had temporarily shielded him from prosecution over a violent road rage stabbing.
The ruling clears the way for the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to proceed with the criminal case and leaves Du Plessis, a practising member of the Bar, to defend himself in open court like any other accused person.
The court found that the earlier order blocking the prosecution unlawfully interfered with the prosecuting authority’s constitutional powers. The judge stated that the decision to institute criminal proceedings belongs to the NPA, not the courts, and warned that stopping prosecutions before trial risks paralysing the criminal justice system.
“The order granted… effectively suspends the NPA’s constitutional duty to criminally prosecute,” the judge said, describing it as “a judicial pre-emption of a core executive function.”
With the interdict set aside, the protection Du Plessis secured on an urgent basis has fallen away. The attempted murder charge can now proceed through the ordinary criminal process.
Knife attack after traffic dispute
The prosecution stems from a 2023 confrontation at an intersection where the traffic lights were not functioning during a load-shedding event.
Du Plessis and Conrad Pretorius nearly collided. Du Plessis followed Pretorius to obtain his licence plate details. What began as a traffic dispute escalated into a physical fight in the street.
Pretorius allegedly punched Du Plessis, who then fell to the ground. While down, he drew a pocketknife and stabbed Pretorius twice, once in the neck and once in the upper thigh.
Pretorius was hospitalised for about a week with stab wounds. Du Plessis was treated for a concussion and released the same day.
Those injuries, and the use of a knife during the altercation, ultimately led prosecutors to conclude that there was a prima facie case of attempted murder.
The NPA had initially decided not to prosecute, apparently accepting a possible self-defence explanation. But after further representations and an internal review, that decision was reversed, and the authority resolved to charge him.
Instead of preparing to face the criminal case, Du Plessis approached the High Court urgently to stop the prosecution entirely. He argued that additional representations had been made to prosecutors without his knowledge and that he was denied an opportunity to respond. He also claimed that being charged would damage his reputation, dignity, and standing as an advocate.
The court says the trial is where he must answer
The judge rejected those arguments and made it clear that the charging process is administrative, not a mini-trial where every submission must be disclosed to a suspect.
He said accused persons are not entitled to see and respond to every representation placed before prosecutors. Requiring that would bog down the system and undermine prosecutorial independence.
The court stressed that judicial intervention to stop a prosecution is reserved for the rarest cases involving clear unlawfulness or bad faith. In this case, the judge said, it did not come close.
It also dismissed the claim that reputational or professional harm justified blocking the case. “The social prejudice of being accused is an inherent burden of the criminal process, not a basis for its interruption,” the judge said.
If Du Plessis believes he acted in self-defence, the court added, that defence must be tested through evidence and cross-examination at trial, not avoided through urgent court applications.
The rule nisi was discharged with immediate effect, and Du Plessis was ordered to pay costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
