- Two Limpopo traffic officers were acquitted of corruption after being accused of asking a speeding motorist for money. The Director of Public Prosecutions then successfully appealed that decision.
- The High Court found that talking about money, lunch or a cooldrink instead of issuing a traffic summons counts as asking for an improper reward under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.
- The acquittals were set aside and replaced with convictions for corruption. The case was sent back to the Regional Court for sentencing.
The High Court in Polokwane made it clear that corruption by public officials is complete as soon as a reward is requested or agreed to, even if there is no clear proof that payment happened.
The case involved traffic officers Zwanda Tshivhase and Vhutali Mantsha, who were stopped during a sting operation for allegedly asking a motorist for money after catching him speeding. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed after the Regional Court in Giyani acquitted the officers.
Judge JT Ngobeni found that the trial court misunderstood what counts as corruption under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act. The High Court decided that the evidence showed the officers had asked for an improper reward to avoid issuing a traffic summons.
Judge Ngobeni stressed that corruption does not require proof that money was actually received. “The definition of gratification purposely casts the net wide and includes, inter alia, money, whether in cash or otherwise, donations, loans, the avoidance of a loss or liability, and any valuable consideration or benefit of any kind.”
Sting operation in the Vhembe area
The incident happened during an anti-corruption operation that started after complaints about illegal activities by traffic officials along roads in the Vhembe district.
The Road Traffic Management Corporation ran the operation with approval from the Director of Public Prosecutions. An undercover agent, Superintendent Michael Mavhunga, was tasked with interacting with traffic officials during stops.
On 21 September 2018, the agent was stopped on the R523 after exceeding the speed limit. According to the state, Tshivhase and Mantsha spoke about money with the motorist instead of issuing a traffic summons.
The state said the officers demanded R200 in cash so the motorist could leave without a summons. The officer who stopped the motorist allegedly told him to put the money under a nearby stone.
Although the video footage did not clearly show the money being placed under the stone, the agent later said he left R70 there.
Defence argued officers were joking
At trial, the officers admitted they had spoken to the motorist about money but said their comments were jokes.
Tshivhase admitted to telling the motorist that if he thought otherwise, he could place R200 under a stone. Mantsha said he suggested the motorist could buy them lunch or a cooldrink after explaining he was rushing to collect his children.
The Regional Court found the evidence unclear and decided that the audio and video footage did not clearly support the undercover agent's testimony.
The magistrate ruled that contradictions in the agent’s evidence, such as not being sure which officer mentioned the R200, meant the state had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
High Court finds trial court misapplied the law
On appeal, the High Court found that the Regional Court made a mistake by not applying the legal definition of corruption correctly.
Judge Ngobeni pointed out that both officers admitted talking about money with the motorist while working as traffic officers. “Accused 1 admits that they stopped the agent for exceeding the speed limit and used their discretion not to issue a traffic summons to him,” the judge wrote.
The judge also noted that the officer acknowledged making the statement about placing money under a stone. “I am the one who stated those words.”
The High Court said that the admission cleared up the confusion about which officer spoke about the money. “The confirmation by accused 1 that he is the one who spoke to the agent about the amount of R200 cures the contradiction,” the judge wrote.
The court found that all the evidence together showed an unlawful request for a reward. “If the lower court had looked at all the evidence, it would have found that there was clear wrongdoing, not just a suspicion.”
Judge Ngobeni explained that corruption is a crime as soon as someone makes or asks for an offer of reward. “The crime of corruption is complete once an offer is made to a person to perform a prescribed act for gratification.”
Convictions substituted and sentencing to follow
The High Court upheld the appeal and replaced the acquittals with convictions for corruption under section 4(1)(a) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.
The case has now been sent back to the same Regional Court for sentencing, where evidence in mitigation and aggravation will be heard.
Judge Ngobeni ordered the Regional Magistrate to give both parties proper notice before reopening the case for sentencing.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
