VIDEO | Matlala Schedule of offences wrong, but denying Matlala bail was right - state

The state has conceded that the Alexandra magistrate’s court misdirected itself on the schedule of offences faced by alleged crime kingpin Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala but maintained that the decision to deny him bail was not wrong.

Appearing before the Johannesburg high court on Monday, Matlala’s defence was appealing the bail denied by magistrate Syta Prinsloo in September. She ruled that Matlala was a flight risk and a danger to witnesses and had failed to prove special circumstances under Schedule 6 that would justify his release on bail.

Despite the concession that the state made that the magistrate misdirected on the schedule, I did not make any concessions that the ultimate denial of bail was in fact wrong.

—  State prosecutor

However, the defence found that the magistrate had made the decision with the Schedule 6 interpretation instead of the Schedule 5 that Matlala was facing.

The state prosecutor, who cannot be named by court order, insisted that the magistrate’s ruling stood on firm legal ground despite the scheduling error.

“Despite the concession that the state made that the magistrate misdirected on the schedule, I did not make any concessions that the ultimate denial of bail was in fact wrong.

“And if the court has regard to Section 65, the yardstick is still that this court can only interfere with the decision of the magistrate if this court is convinced that her decision was wrong,” she argued.

The state argued that while the classification of the charges may have been mistaken, the magistrate had properly weighed the evidence and reached a reasonable conclusion based on Matlala’s conduct, risk to witnesses and the seriousness of the offences.

“I would still want to refer the court to the well-motivated and detailed judgment given by the learned magistrate. She dealt in her judgment with every aspect placed before her by both the applicants at that stage and the respondents. She started by analysing the personal circumstances of the appellant.

“She went on to look at the state’s case, the evidence placed by the state on record, and ultimately, and that was the correct approach. There’s nothing wrong with that approach to look at all the evidence placed before her cumulatively,” the prosecutor said.

The defence also argued about the timeline of payment made by Matlala into the account of Nthabiseng Nzama, the daughter of his co-accused Floyd Mabusela.

It was revealed that the payment deposited into her account came after the death of Mabusela’s mother, reiterating the defence case that it was for her funeral.

The state conceded that the detectives on the matter may have got it wrong.

“It is so that the investigating officer referred to a specific time of death; in the affidavit, it is indeed dated the day of the death and the time that is indicated is 12 o’clock. So that seems to me the time that the death was reported or that she made that affidavit. So the reporting of 12.36pm could well be the date of the reporting and not the actual death. I would want the court to consider that she made a bona fide mistake with regard to the report.

“So to jump to the conclusion that she is malicious is just simply not the only reasonable inference that this court can come to. I concede now that the investigating officer may have made a mistake with regard to the time of death,” she said.

Matlala’s lawyer, Adv Lawrence Hodes, argued that the magistrate’s ruling was fundamentally flawed and that the state’s own concession confirmed this.

“The decision is clearly wrong and is even conceded by the state. For us to accept that is a mistake about the time of the death and time of payment; it’s the audacity of the state ... but none of the circumstantial evidence shows the guilt of the appellant — they were merely utilised to deny bail," Hodes said.

The defence maintained that Matlala can be placed on the condition of house arrest with the release of R100,000 bail.

Judge Elmien du Plessis reserved judgment.

Sowetan