NPA suspends prosecutor after courtroom contempt finding

Added: 2026-05-19

[00:00:00]out. Back to our top story now. The National Prosecuting Authority has confirmed that it has suspended the prosecutor found in contempt of court in the Guaca Fontaine Magistrate's Court in Bumalanga. The NPA says it'll institute disciplinary action. It comes after the court took a turn when the case was struck off the court role in the case against Texas boss Joe Ferrari Saboni and three others. We are now joined in studio by advocate Tunzi Maga from the National Prosecuting Authority. Good afternoon to you and thanks very much for your um time. I mean this I don't know how often this this happens but it's was quite a shocker for many people.

[00:00:44]>> Uh good afternoon for you and good afternoon to your your viewers. Indeed it is um unprecedented.

[00:00:51]It has never happened in the history of the national prosecuting authority which was established on one August 1998 that a prosecutor does not arrive in court without any explanation. He is then convicted of condemned of court and a warrant of arrest is issued against him and the matter in respect of which he was prosecuting is struck off the role in terms of section 342 capital A of the criminal procedure act with implications that it can only be reinstated upon a written authorization of the director of public prosecutions. It is for that reason that the national director when we saw this on television, we immediately um had to take action and the director of public prosecutions in Bumagalanga is in the process of now ensuring that uh the suspension kicks in and a disciplinary action is taken against him because remember he is now a convicted person and that is sought by law enforcement who is actually a prosecutor. In the case, the accused persons that were facing serious charges of extortion and money laundering are now free until such time that we comply with the legal provisions of the relevant section. Uh but he has impressed on the public to exercise a bit of patience whilst we are dealing with this matter. A national director does not consider it to be a setback though it is dis disappointing. it he has expressed this shock and dismay but internally appropriate disciplinary action will be taken and the DPP is now engaging with the law enforcement in order to facilitate a reenrollment of the case so they are not really off the hook at all >> of course I mean we dealing with a tax boss here >> and um the reputation of that industry you know is I mean precedes it's Now, are you willing to give him the benefit of a doubt and say perhaps?

[00:03:03]Of course, I mean the your investigations will I mean he will give his his his reasons but are we prepared to give him the benefit of a doubt?

[00:03:13]>> The benefit of a doubt can only be given in an instance where there is no conviction yet. The difficulty we are facing as the prosecuting authority within the criminal justice system who are repository of the rule of law and the constitution is that there's a conviction there's warrant of arrest out for him to be brought in and be prosecuted in fact be incarcerated within the the correct national services um um centers. Now the difficult is that we don't have an explanation.

[00:03:51]Now how do you then give a person a benefit of a doubt in circumstances where there's no satisfactory explanation or an explanation that is upfront because for the first time in the history of the criminal justice system a prosecutor does not pion to continue with a bail application that was partly had. So that's why I'm saying the the question of benefit of a doubt does not arise in circumstances where a person has been convicted by a court >> without necessarily preempting his evidence or whatever is going to be his defense. Um what kind of support do you give to prosecutors who deal with these kinds of cases where danger ls because of the people you're actually dealing with? We look at the magnitude of the case, accused involved, the charges they are facing and then do a security assessment in conjunction or in consultation with law enforcement because internally within the NPA, the security and risk unit that provides that support. And in this instance, unfortunately, the national director was not made aware or he was not the matter was not brought to his attention in so far as security risks are concerned because we would have provided saying immediately once a report would have been submitted to the team that leads the prosecution so that adequate measures are put in place to protect him. But as matters stand, we're dealing with one of our own who has been convicted by a court of law who is now sought by law enforcement under a warrant of arrest which is the concern that we have because we have a serious extortion and money laundering case that has been struck off with in less than 10 days after its enrollment. Do you know how embarrassing that can be?

[00:05:51]>> So you are going to reenroll. How long is that going to take or what are the conditions you will you will need to meet? Reenrollment requires the prosecutors that is the director of public prosecutors assigning prosecutors to the case to study the docket, engage the investigating officers and prepare an authorization in terms of section 342 capital A of the criminal procedure act that regulates um criminal proceedings in South Africa.

[00:06:23]Once the determination has been made that the matter is ripe to be reenrolled, the DCPP will then prepare that return authorization after which law enforcement will then choose between two things. Prepare warrants of arrest to have them arrested or serve them with summons to appear in court within 14 days. Now your your statement says in part that while the magistrate is within his or her prerogative to invoke the relevant section of the criminal procedure act, we will reflect on the order and determine if it is the best legally available mechanism to deal with the mentor. Does that mean that you have reservations? Oh, indeed. We we have reservations because the the the the first appearance was on the 12th of May, if I'm I'm I'm not mistaken, and today is the 18th of May. You invoke section 342 capital A of the Criminal Procedure Act when you consider and make a determination or a finding that there was unreasonable delay. Now we we are now reflecting to see if can we really say there was unreasonable delay. Can we really say that it is the only legally permissible um mechanism of dealing with the matter in this circumstances? I have made it clear to you that we are faced with a difficulty that it is unprecedented for a prosecutor not to arrive in court resulting in a matter being struck off the rock. So we will look at that and see if indeed the decision itself or the order was legally sound in the circumstances. We have not closed that door whilst we're working tirelessly to ensure that there's a reenrollment of the matter. Like I said the national director advocate motib says in as much as it's disappointed but it's not a setback because we are within our right and authority to reenroll the matter as provided for in the relevant section of the criminal procedure act. I mean to quote the the the the m the the the magistrate she says it's a quote unquote classic case of undue delay.

[00:08:37]It is part of a reflection process that we will undertake to see if we agree with her or not that 12th of May up to the 18th of May is an unreasonable delay. It's a determination we're going to make. Whilst parallel to that we work tirelessly to ensure that the DPP prosecutors and law enforcement work around the clock to get the matter reenrolled once there's compliance with the provisions of the relevant section.

[00:09:06]>> You you said I mean at the beginning this is this is unprecedented and uh advocate Machavu who we spoke to earlier said this quote unquote happens routinely.

[00:09:20]The unprecedented part of it relates to a prosecutor that does not arrive in court resulting in him being convicted of condemned of God. In the end, a matter is struck off the role. So, it can be correct that it happens often >> because we don't have records of a prosecutor not arriving in court without any explanation. The matter is struck off role. He is convicted of condemned or court. He is sought after by law enforcement because of the warrant of arrest issued. So I beg to differ with him with respect to thank you very much for your time.

[00:09:58]Thank you.