The Mpumalanga High Court in Mbombela has affirmed the decision of the lower court and denied bail to a man accused of murdering his wife in front of family members.Â
Ralph Malambe turned 36 years old on 1 September 2024, the day that the State alleges that he murdered his wife Phumla Maphanga by shooting her with an unlicensed firearm. He then disappeared and re-surfaced after two to three days when he presented himself at the police station accompanied by his lawyer. Â
He was arrested and charged with one count of murder and one count of contravention of the provisions of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000, read with Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, possession of a prohibited firearm. The State further alleges that the murder was premeditated.Â
Malambe instituted bail proceedings, which were opposed by the State on the basis that the charges fall within the ambit of Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In his affidavit, he said he has parental obligations to his three minor children and business interests in two enterprises through which he earns his living and takes care of his family. He has one employee who will not be able to take care of the business if he is not granted bail. Â
Malambe disclosed his previous convictions as well as other charges he was arrested for that were later withdrawn. He submitted that he will not evade trial and said that he handed himself to the authorities and co-operated with the police by pointing out to them the firearm used in the commission of the offence. He intends to plead not guilty should the matter proceed to trial, he said. If the court grants bail, he said he will neither interfere with witnesses nor undermine the administration of justice.Â
The State argued that his release on bail will undermine the administration of justice. It said that there is likelihood of interfering with the witnesses. “The case against the appellant is overwhelming and if convicted he is likely to be sentenced to a long period of imprisonment. It is therefore likely that if admitted to bail, he will evade trial. It is not in the interests of justice that he be granted bail,” according to the State. Â
The magistrate at the time after weighing up the evidence tendered by both parties concluded that Malambe had failed to establish exceptional circumstances required to justify his release from custody pending trial. He consequently refused to grant bail. Â
Malambe then turned to the High Court, contending that the finding that he failed to discharge the onus to prove that exceptional circumstances exist to permit his release on bail was wrong. He said the magistrate committed an error of law by emphasising the protection of witnesses against interference and failed to balance it against other factors such as his poor health, and the fact that he handed himself to the authorities and co-operated with the police.Â
He said by denying him bail, the magistrate has effectively convicted him, and that this runs contrary to the established principles of our law that every person is entitled to bail unless the interests of justice dictate otherwise. Â
After hearing the appeal, the High Court ruled that the magistrate had properly exercised his discretion, noting that the case against Malambe was strong. It affirmed the decision to deny him bail.
#Conviction
Â
