- The court confirmed the Regional Magistrate used the wrong legal standard, but bail refusal was still justified.
- Matlala failed to dispel risks of flight, obstruction of justice, and threats to community safety.
- His possession of a prison cellphone and foreign assets raised concerns about influence and escape.
The Johannesburg High Court’s refusal to grant bail to Vusimuzi Matlala was not just about the strength of the State’s case. It was about risk.
Acting Judge PJ du Plessis noted that the Regional Magistrate applied the stricter Schedule 6 standard incorrectly. However, he found that even under the correct Schedule 5 threshold, Matlala did not show that his release would serve justice.
“A detained person does not have an automatic right to be released on bail,” the judgment stated. “Instead, the burden is on the accused to establish that the interests of justice permit his or her release.”
Flight risk and foreign interests
The court found that Matlala did not eliminate the risk of flight. It cited his alleged use of a forged Eswatini identity card and undisclosed offshore interests in Mauritius. WhatsApp messages between Matlala and his wife requesting the card photo were deemed credible.
“There is no technology known to the State that can implant such communication on two phones and on a specific date to falsely implicate the appellant,” Judge Du Plessis wrote. The court also pointed out Matlala’s Wacko and JR Trust based in Mauritius, which was revealed only after investigators discovered it on his phone. “The appellant’s foreign interests raise legitimate concerns about his ability to flee.”
Obstruction and influence
Matlala’s possession of a cellphone while in jail was a serious issue. The device had contacts linked to the Madlanga Commission, which looks into corruption and interference in the justice system. “This unauthorised access is a serious concern,” the court stated, “as it directly poses a risk of witness intimidation, threats, or the coordination of harm relevant to this matter.”
The State also claimed that complainant Tebogo Thobejane left the country after receiving threats from people allegedly connected to Matlala. While Matlala denied any involvement, the court found the risk of interference credible and unresolved.
Serious charges and public safety
Matlala faces several counts of attempted murder across three cases. The State agreed its case is circumstantial and may face admissibility challenges. However, the court found that the seriousness of the charges justified continued detention. “The seriousness of the offences demonstrates a clear danger to community safety,” du Plessis wrote, citing Section 60(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Matlala’s legal team argued that co-accused 1 and 2, who were allegedly the gunmen, were released on warning while he remained in custody. The court acknowledged the discrepancy but held that bail decisions must rely on individual risk profiles. “Accused 1 and 2 may have been released on warning, but that does not automatically entitle the appellant to bail,” the judgment stated. “Each case must be assessed on its own merits.”
Conclusion burden not discharged
In conclusion, the court reaffirmed that Matlala’s personal circumstances, though compelling, were outweighed by the risks he posed. “The burden has not been met,” Judge Du Plessis concluded.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
