Taxi Boss Case | Sibanyoni, Sindane back in court for various charges

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]All right, let's try and make sense of everything you've heard around that case. We're joined now by legal analyst and senior practitioner Zamavu. Good evening to you and thank you for your time. That didn't take long, did it?

[00:00:12]Between the matter being struck off the role and the NPA making good on their undertaking to reenroll the matter and not only reenroll it, but we understand that it's moving from the Guaca Fontaine Magistrate's Court to Delmas. What do we read into these two? the speed with which it was reenrolled as well as it being moved to the Delmas magistrate's court.

[00:00:37]>> Good evening. I think there is a bit of an echo from Okay, that's taken care of now. Good evening. Uh good evening to the viewers out there. As I predicted, I'm not surprised that it was handled with the speed with which it has now been accomplished. Uh we we need to commend the NPA for having acted the way they did. It is completely unsurprising.

[00:01:03]I did say that uh it was a bit of a premature celebration but one understood what had happened on the day. A lot of facts are now emerging that we were not privy to. So I guess the matter is now back on the roll and we need to see what then happens. But what is interesting to note is that they have not been arrested from the reports. I think they have been invited to present themselves to court for the matter to proceed. One can therefore reasonably issue of bail does not arise but we will see the state of readiness from the point of view of how soon can the matter be enrolled for trial. I guess those developments will be made known tomorrow. It's a bit of a tangent from the main discussion we're having, but you've already raised it.

[00:01:53]Address that why you think it's interesting that they've not been arrested this time around. Uh Joseph Anonyi and the other accused. And that's because arrest is not the only way that you can bring a person to court. But as you say, it has implications for whether or not you oppose their release on bail, them being on bail pending the the trial.

[00:02:16]>> That's precisely the point. you you are spot on. I guess what one can also infer is that had they chosen to go the warrant of arrest route that might have taken a bit longer at the very least maybe 14 days from the date on which the warrant is authorized and for the NP I would imagine that speed was of the essence and they opted to just invite them for them to present themselves to court so that at least the public can see that the matter itself is proceeding as opposed to wasting in time on a potentially protracted bail application.

[00:02:53]Yeah, but I think it was smart move on their on on their part. One cannot fall to them. Zamachu, there's a sense in which in a way the NPA is throwing everything but the kitchen cabinet, the kitchen sink at the uh the other side as far as this goes. One, they are reenrolling the matter. Two, they are appealing the orders that were made by uh the magistrate. three, reporting the magistrate to the magistrate's commission while also dealing with the issues that have come up um around the prosecutor. Are you surprised given everything we are hearing about um how this case and the uh offenses that are in play in this case link to one of the key priority areas for the NPA, organized crime.

[00:03:40]>> Look, I'm I'm not surprised. The MPA is perfectly within its right to act in the manner in which they have properly been advised and it is sound advice. Firstly, the issue of the reinrollment was a non-starter because in fairness to the magistrate. She had struck the matter of the role and gave a provisor and the provisor was a an authorization by the DPP ought to have been obtained prior to the reenrollment. We can accept that that has happened and the first order of business when they appear in court tomorrow would be the prosecutor will stand up and say to the court the matter is reenrolled in compliance with the relevant section 342 capital A and here here with proof from the DPP that he has authorized that's the one part other part regarding the appeal I'm not sure if that is the correct terminology to use I would have imagined that as far as the the the orders are concerned, a review would have been the most sensible way to go because if you are suggesting some irregularities, which is what one less from what advocate is saying, then we are in the province of a review as opposed to an appeal. But I think the the conundrum that we are faced with all of us is created by a presiding officer who could have been not correct in ruling the way she did. But I think she went slightly beyond the norm by summarily convicting the prosecutor in absentia for contempt. Even though substantively there may well have been a good reason to find him in contempt, but you do not prejudge the matter, what she ought to have done, which is what normally happens, and that's probably what I think would be the kernel of the NPA's complaint, is that a warrant of arrest could have been issued, which is what happens daily, and that particular prosecutor could have been told to appear within 14 days. Alternatively, he could himself present himself before the expire of the 14 days to explain or give reasons for his non-appearance.

[00:05:56]>> Yeah.

[00:05:57]>> Depending on the coency thereof, it may well be that the magistrate might be satisfied through that inquiry that he was not in willful contempt because being in contempt on its own does not necessarily mean that you must be sanctioned. So, she prejudged the matter because she summarily convicted him. But where I think there's a gap and I'll be surprised if the NPA doesn't make noise about it is you convict a person in absentia and that person is now sitting without the benefit of addressing some evidence in mitigation because it follows that after a conviction there must be a sanction. In this case the magistrate not sanctioned the person. So there is even a question about whether or not those proceedings are complete because they would have been complete upon a conviction and a sanction and that sanction would have had to be preceded by his explanation or plea for clemency. So it is a conundrum. So I think in all likelihood they are taking her own review in respect of those contagious orders.

[00:07:01]>> Salav always a pleasure talking to you and tapping into your knowledge and expertise on these matters. That's legal analyst, senior practitioner Zola Majavu giving us some analysis on that story there around Jose Boni. The matter back on the roll now this time in Delmas.