Zola Majavu unpacks court matters of Joe Sibanyoni, Brown Mogotsi

追加: 2026-05-31

[00:00:00]Counsel for prominent businessman and taxi boss Joseph and Eunice says it will no longer pursue an urgent high court interdict to prevent the NPA and police from effecting the J50 warrant of arrest against him and his three co-accused.

[00:00:15]Sevanyoni and co-accused appeared briefly at the Delmas Magistrate's Court after the NPA had re-enrolled their money laundering and extortion case.

[00:00:23]Last week the Kwamhlanga Magistrate's Court struck the matter off the roll.

[00:00:26]The Delmas Magistrate's Court has granted all the accused around 70,000 rand bail each. All right, we stay with the proceedings now and speak to legal expert and senior practitioner Zola Majavu. Good evening to you, sir, and thank you so much for your time. Perhaps we start with how all of this was to work if they were to, you know, go ahead particularly with this urgent high court bid to stop this J50 warrant of arrest.

[00:00:55]>> Good evening and good evening to the viewers out there.

[00:00:58]Perhaps the useful starting point would be for me to acknowledge the collegiality demonstrated and displayed by both the state and the defense, which in turn made the life of the court very easy. That's proper law fare at play, so kudos to my colleagues. How this would have panned out um is is really academic because when that application was launched last night, they ought to have known that their clients were intending to avail themselves in compliance with the J50 order, which would have then rendered the application and the relief they seek in that application moot or academic in the manner of speak. So, I think the application together with the relief sought was overcome by events in that the selfsame applicants in that high court application chose on their own volition to respond positively to the J50 and appeared in court. So, by the time their proceedings in the in the magistrate's court was underway, there would have been very little point in proceeding with the high court application which they had been had been launched the night before. So, I think it it was a pragmatic and wise decision to abandon that because the court was simply going to throw it out because the courts are not in the business of giving academic judgments.

[00:02:20]>> Could we um you know, as we look at these particular proceedings because you do have people who are confused to say that when you speak about the re-enrollment, for example, are you now saying that you're going to start from scratch to investigate? What does it mean to use the same docket that you would have used in the previous matter?

[00:02:38]>> Re-enrollment simply means you carry on from where you left off. The docket still remains the same. The case number still remains the same. The accused persons still remain the same. The matter was struck off the roll on a technicality. And now that that technicality has since been obviated, it simply means that the state is now in a position where they can make the contents of the docket available to the defense. And then the stage is set for the trial proper wherein the merits of this case are to be ventilated. So, it it it was really a a temporary setback in that the prosecutor failed to appear and the matter was struck off the roll.

[00:03:21]But, the court also made a proviso that says the matter can be re-enrolled. No time frames were put to it. No other conditions except the one condition which says that for the re-enrollment to happen, it must be duly authorized by the deputy director of public prosecutions in Mpumalanga province.

[00:03:40]With that certificate of authorization having been obtained, there was absolutely nothing stopping the state from re-arraigning the accused persons and putting before them the same charges that they were facing 10 days ago. So, it's not a matter that's starting afresh as if the investigation must itself be started afresh from the beginning. The state says they're happy with what they have in the docket, and that is why a provisional date of the 12th of June was agreed upon being the date on which the state through the prosecutors would give the docket the contents thereof at least to the defense, and then the matter will go to court on the 5th on the 1st of September. So, it's not as if we're starting from scratch.

[00:04:23]>> And then when it comes then to of course as you speak about that particular sitting where we saw the you know the prosecutor at some point even you know as the matter was ongoing raising some serious security concerns then we finding ourselves now in Delmas and no longer in Kuaha Fontaine. What becomes the safeguards that the NPA needs to put in place here for us not to find ourselves in a place where again we seeing possible technicalities you know just putting serious hurdles on this particular matter.

[00:04:55]>> Firstly, one of the immediate steps that the state took because they dominate these proceedings they moved the case from Kuaha Fontaine to Delmas. They would have had to have a security reconnaissance that was done firstly so it does show that they are taking the safety concerns for everyone involved in the value chain very seriously.

[00:05:17]Secondly, issues of state the the the the the security arrangements are not publicly spoken about but one would imagine and as if as having seen the heavy police presence in and out of the court premises one can accept that the necessary security arrangements for the affected prosecutor and any other person involved in this matter have been put in place. And I don't think we should be obsessed about security considerations as if the state itself it not have the capacity to protect those to whom they owe a duty of protection. I think it would be a sad day if the judicial officers are deterred from doing their work, if the prosecutors or even lawyers, because some lawyers have been threatened. I myself have been the subject matter of threats for the longest of time, but security arrangements were put in place that were not openly spoken about in public. So, I think the stage is set for the matter to go underway, and the state has the might to meet those who think that they can obstruct by threatening anyone involved in the in the rule of law. So, I think when good heads.

[00:06:23]>> Let's talk about another matter because you know, it also raises questions for some people who may not even know how bail you know, proceedings actually work. That's the Brown matter.

[00:06:34]His lawyers say that he can only afford 10,000 rand, while the state is saying put it at 100,000 rand. And then one wonders what kind of balance apart from the other matters that the state will need to take into account as far as this particular bail is concerned. If the court were to grant the bail, of course we know the matters, but when it comes to this particular amount, what kind of of reasoning is reached for them to then find middle ground between these two amounts?

[00:07:02]>> I think it's a fair question and a fair observation. I think as a starting point, bail is not meant to be used for punitive purposes. And the fact that you may not have the financial wherewithal does not mean if you are a suitable candidate to be admitted to bail, money should be an obstacle. There are other ways in which your future attendance at court can be secured other than money.

[00:07:26]For example, you could put up collateral of an asset, or there may well be other considerations. You could also be placed under what what can be routinely referred to as house arrest, or And may have to pledge a security some form of debt that is due to you. For example, if you were a tenderpreneur and you stood to be paid X amount of money for services that you rendered, there is nothing stopping you from pledging the money that would have been coming to you on account of professional services rendered. So, there's no magic wand that one can just you know, wave to say the one says 10, the other one says 100. There's nothing stopping the magistrate from saying, "Having listened to the considerations, especially the personal circumstances of the candidate for bail, 20,000 could be sufficient. So, there's not a magic number. I think in this instance, it that he has to be a bit heavy-handed.

[00:08:23]There's no reason why they should ask for bail in the amount of 10,000 or 20,000 in my view. It's not, but I think it's only fair that we should wait for the presiding he has seized with the matter.

[00:08:36]>> Appreciate your time. Thank you so much for speaking to us, legal expert and senior practitioner Olamide speaking to us on the proceedings at the Delmas Magistrate's Court as well as what took place there in the matter where Brown Mokwena was applying for bail.