Extortion case of taxi boss Sibanyoni, co-accused struck off the roll: Adv Zola Majavu weighs in

Added: 2026-05-18

[00:00:00]Well, let's give you some perspective on what you've seen transpiring at that magistrate's court. The issuing of an arrest warrant against the prosecutor as well as the news now that he will face disciplinary action from the National Prosecuting Authority. Let's speak to senior legal uh practitioner and legal analyst Mr. Zamachavo. Good evening to you, Mr. Machavo, and thank you for your time. How unusual a turn of events is this? the issuing of an arrest warrant for a prosecutor having failed to attend the hearing of a case as opposed to one issued against a witness or perhaps an accused person.

[00:00:38]Good evening to Las and good evening to the viewers at home. Firstly, the very act of a warrant of arrest being issued by someone who is acting in defiance of a direct court order is common place. There is nothing exceptional about it. It happens every day. It's the same warrant could have been authorized against you as a witness or me as a as a complainant for that matter. It it really has to do with the efficacy and the respect for court rulings. What makes this one particularly interesting to the public is that it was issued against an officer of the court in the form of the prosecutor who is the person who is supposed to lead the charges against the affected person. So neither a prosecutor nor any witness is immune from complying with the court directive. So it is something that happens and is provided for in the criminal procedure act.

[00:01:43]>> So from the proceedings last week it appeared to be something of a an issue of alignment of diaries uh really because the prosecutor's argument at the time was that he had another matter uh from which he could not withdraw that needed him to be in attendance um certainly on on a Monday like today. So how do magistrates and legal representatives of both sides, the state and the defense deal with these matters where it would seem there was a clash of diaries? The prosecutor saying that you know it was virtually impossible for him to be present in court today.

[00:02:19]>> That may be the case but once the court pronounces it becomes a court order that all of us must comply with. It has happened where I could not get my preferred dates. the prosecutor could not get the preferred dates and ultimately the person whose word is final is the judicial officer and in this instance judicial visa so ruled.

[00:02:40]Can you imagine what would happen if we as practitioners were to pick and choose what is convenient to us. Similarly, it is not open to litigants or witnesses to pick and choose. That's precisely why the courts are there and someone who preides must have the final authority.

[00:02:57]We do not know whether this particular prosecutor did not pitch at court due to that earlier pre-arranged commitment or any other reason. But arrangements could have been made for another prosecutor to stand in for him because this matter had not commenced in a sense that it could not be said to have been partly heard.

[00:03:18]that even if it was partly had once a judge or any judicial officer such as a magistrate says you shall do this, you shall do that absent any cogent explanation or unless excused by a court, you run the risk of being found in contempt. And sadly and unfortunately without casting aspians on that colleague, this is what the magistrate did and she was perfectly entitled to do so. without inviting you to cast us Persians on that colleague. Let me ask you then if you were faced with what appears to be a Sophie's choice really um which path would you have taken the path where the magistrate said as an order that you are ordered to be here on Monday for this matter or the other matter that clashes with with with that that particular matter which path would you have chosen?

[00:04:06]>> I'll answer you directly. I am an officer of the court so I owe my filty to to court and the oath of office that I took. If that is the case, you you surrender the brief to someone else who is available on a day that you are not available on. The fact of the matter is court orders are there to be complied with. It's as simple as that. Is there something to be said though because part of the prosecutor's explanation to the court last week sought to highlight what appeared to me to be a resource uh and logistical challenge uh for the prosecution the NPA for example there was a suggestion made that you know he could be booked in Guaca Fanta or one of the areas nearby over the weekend to which he answered that that's not how things work in the NPA and you've alluded for example to the possibility of assigning another prosecutor. Is there a conversation to be had about resourcing and how to deploy those resources uh both human resources but also other resources supporting prosecutors uh in the conduct of their work on a day-to-day basis?

[00:05:15]>> Let me answer you in the inverse. Think of the rights of an accused person who is entitled to a constitutionally entrenched right to his liberty. It is the prosecution and the police who decided at what point to arrest at what point to bring this matter before the court. And bail even a law student in first year will tell you that bail is inherently treated as urgent. Mr. in particular was arrested last Monday for reasons that no one can fault him for. 7 days later, he still finds himself in a court cell when he has not been admitted to bail, which is his constitutionally entrenched right, of course, provided that he satisfies the courts by aducing the necessary evidentiary threshold. So, the state has all the resources. The state is not reliant on this one prosecutor. There are many other capable prosecutors. So if I was the defense, I would have had none of this. In fact, I would have probably rushed to the high court last Monday already. So it really cannot be said that logistics should trump someone's right to liberty. It simply doesn't work that way. Look at it this way. The police, the investigative officer was himself not before court.

[00:06:36]What possible explanation could there be? With all the resources, the South African police services responded in full force. You have that courtroom turned into a semi-military zone. But when the police are supposed to do what they are resourced to do, they pick and choose what they do. They prefer their own daries over court orders. I don't know what their reasons are for, but you must remember the presiding officer must undertake a very delicate balancing act.

[00:07:04]the interest of society, the interest of the states, but most importantly the interest of someone who is yet to be found guilty. You cannot use the issuance of bail or denial thereof as a form of punishment. It looks like it's an ego trip here. People decide you're going to pick up when we want and then when we are not ready or when we haven't done our spade work, we ask the court for a postponement or you tell the court that you are not available. It just doesn't work that way. But the downside of this is that it's not over yet for the state. They can still redeem themselves to show you that the magistrate was very careful. She did not strike it off or she did not rather discontinue the proseution because she doesn't have the power to do so. What she did though was to say, I'm striking this matter off meaning removing it from the court role. you state when you are ready when you've gotten all your logistics in order you can reenroll this M but to make sure that you don't do so willyilly you need the authority of a DPP to authorize you to bring it back and that's exactly what I suspect they're going to do >> Zach I've got to thank you strong sentiments there and insights and analysis from legal analyst senior legal practitioner Zola Machavo