Sibanyoni and his co-accused granted R70 000 bail

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]Well, taxi boss Joe Ferrari Siboni and his three co-acused have been granted bail of 70,000 rand each today. They made a brief appearance in the Delmas magistrate's court in Bumalanga accused of extortion and money laundering. The case was reenrolled this morning after being struck from the role by the Guaca Fund magistrate's court last week.

[00:00:19]That's when the prosecutor failed to appear in court. The accused are due back in court on the 1st of September.

[00:00:28]Let's speak further about the siboni mata of legal analyst and managing director at DA attorneys Melusi Kulu who's joining us now. Meucy, good to have you on SABC News. Um let's talk about what had caused a bit of an upset early this morning when SAN's legal team basically tried to one would say challenge the issuing of these J50 warrants that were issued for his and his co-acused arrest. What sort of warrant is that? and when is it appropriate that it is issued?

[00:01:02]>> Um good afternoon to you and to the viewers at home. Basically J50 warrant is a warrant that is issued when an accused in a matter um is a person who escaped or a person that could not bomb.

[00:01:15]So a J 50 warrant will be issued so that the police can be able to arrest him whenever they see him or wherever he is.

[00:01:22]So in this case basically uh we all know that the matter was struck off the road and when the matter was struck off the road then because the matter has been taken back to court based on the fact that the DPP of Bumalang has issued a letter that the matter must be reinated.

[00:01:39]So they then issued a J50 warrant for them to to to be arrested but obviously they then after getting information that the warrant has been issued they say they'll hand themselves in court. uh some some sometimes on in general practice is that there's a J50 summons that is issued to to the accused to say he must appear in court without saying he must be arrested when the matter has been either struck off or withdrawn. So most of us were expecting that the J175 summons will be issued but in any case the bail was unopposed and then they got their bed today. So would there be any value legally in their lawyers pursuing their challenge of the issuing of these J50 warrants given that they've already appeared in court today. The state did not put up a fight in terms of the bail application. So ultimately their lives get to continue as normally as they can given the fact that they do have another court case or another appearance on the in September.

[00:02:39]>> Yeah. I I think I I listened to the LEA representative LEA representative talking about the issue that no at least they should have applied section 54 of the criminal procedure act because that one says a J175 summon should be issued but I think maybe it's a matter of principle to say they should have not issued a J50 warrant of arrest to begin with that is why they taking it to court so that at least that principle can be explained properly and then they can be able to say That should have not been done. That is why they are continuing because if you listen to allocate Abrahams, he said despite the fact that the message has been done today, they'll still proceed with me as a matter of principle. That's my view.

[00:03:21]>> So that matter of principle then if they are successful, if the accused are successful in challenging the issuing of these warrants, would it have any um impact for want of a better word on the case itself?

[00:03:38]It will depend if one of the orders that they seeking is that once the J50 warrant has been um stated to be set aside then they must also have the matter to be you know set aside as well.

[00:03:53]It will depend whether that is what they've requested because if not I believe it's just it will be just a matter of principle that a J51 should have not been issued but I believe they would want to draw a point that at least this matter should be withdrawn because of that but I've not had sight of the of of most of what they want in this matter.

[00:04:13]I'm not sure exactly if it will go to that point, but what is important is that I think they expected that at least a J175 summons will be issued to the to the clients and then they'll appear in court.

[00:04:26]>> And this case has been made all the more dramatic by that bizarre sitting last week, right, when the magistrate ultimately threw it out of court without a full set of facts surrounding the whereabouts of the prosecutor. We now know the NPA has put forward an explanation around that and that it wants some sort of investigation into the conduct of the magistrate herself.

[00:04:50]Should she have thrown the matter out without first getting a full set of reasons for the absence of the prosecutor? Was that irregular?

[00:04:59]>> All right. In in in practice, um section 342A is usually needed when the matter is being under delay. Remember our constitution says a matter must be heard without delay. So when the matter bank delayed unreasonably then that section in the criminal procedure act can be used. Now in this case in my view it was still too early for her to issue a section 432A hearing or an order because you know it was still a bail application number one.

[00:05:31]Number two the bail application was opposed. Number three, I don't think the explanation where advocate in Dava was was properly had at least she should have postponed the matter to the next day. So I don't think she should have struck off the matter of the ro and just a second there's a matter which is the same as in it's a tanga versus the state where the magistrate struck struck the matter of the road and it was taken to high court in in um um in northern cave and the court decided that it was done incorrectly. So I believe in this case as well it will be set aside.

[00:06:07]>> And lastly then despite those circumstances one would imagine that ultimately the events of the last week or so have put even more pressure on the NPA to make sure that it does have its ducks in a row when this this matter against his co-acused goes to trial.

[00:06:26]Definitely I think that it has done that but what is expected now in in July on the next date is that they will have a pre-trial where a pre-trial is simply where um before the matter is postponed for trial or for days for trial they check if the investigations because they've been penalized and the docket copies have been given to the accused and the representative whether they are ready for trial and I believe that the state is showing that they taking control of the matter by reinstating back the matter back and by making sure that the str issue is sorted out. They are fully focused on the trial now and we'll hear um what will happen on the pre-trial because that is where the defense will say whether they have any further particulars that they think should be given to them. I I will predict that when we come back on the next occasion I believe that defense will say they have certain things that they want to be given so that they can be ready to try.

[00:07:22]>> Melucies good to talk to you. Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon to give us perspective on the latest developments in the Josani money laundering and extortion Okay.