The state's “hasty decision” to “prematurely” enrol a “weak” case against eight suspended VIP protection officers linked to an alleged vicious attack on the N1 highway came under the spotlight on Tuesday when the police officers were granted bail by the Randburg magistrate's court.
Shadrack Molekatlane Kojoana, Johannes Matome Mampuru, Pomso Joseph Mofokeng, Harmans Madumetja Ramokhonami, Phineas Molefo Boshielo, Churchill Mpakamiseni Mkhize, Lesibana Aggrie Rambau and Moses Fhatuwani Tshidada were each granted R10,000 bail by magistrate Hlengiwe Mkhasibe, who said the state had failed to provide “evidence that the interests of justice do not permit” their release on bail.
The accused were part of deputy president Paul Mashatile's security detail before their suspension.
All eight provisionally face 12 charges, including malicious damage to property, assault with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm and pointing a firearm. They have denied the charges and had asked for bail of between R1,000 and R2,000. Only one of the accused, Kojoana, opted to testify to supplement his bail application.
Mkhasibe started proceedings with an overview of the arguments by the state and defence in the bail application.
She confirmed she too had viewed the short video and said it was “evident the complainants were defenceless, even though the applicants alleged they were drunk”.
“The first applicant testified the video footage traumatised him. One wonders if he, [as] the alleged perpetrator of the crimes, [felt that way], how mortifying it must have been for the complainants on the receiving end,” she said.
She was also scathing of the officers' conduct throughout the alleged attack on the three civilians, saying they were “daring” and “deceitful” throughout. Mkhasibe said the officers had abused their position of power and state resources.
“It is disheartening that the people we depend on [to protect us] have assumed the position of rogue officials. We as the community can never trust the applicants can protect our interests.
“People do not expect the police to get involved in crime,” she said.
Despite her criticism of the accused's behaviour, Mkhasibe agreed with their argument that the state was merely “speculating” on who sent the threatening text message to a state witness, who cannot be named following an order of the court.
The state's main objection to the eight officers being granted bail hinged on this threatening message sent to the man who shared the video. The sender of the message is yet to be identified as the state confessed it was struggling to trace the number as a “burner phone” had been used to send the text.
There is no doubt that if the state conducts a strong investigation, they can secure a conviction, [but] based on the evidence before me, it would be a travesty of justice if I deny the applicants bail
— Magistrate Hlengiwe Mkhabise
Her sharp words for the state did not end there] as Mkhasibe noted their “hasty decision” to place the matter on the roll without finalising investigations.
“One would have expected them to wait a while, gather the evidence and then bring the matter to court,” she said.
She raised the fact that the victims had not identified their assailants and that the state had no intention to conduct an identity parade. Additionally, they had not secured the “star” witness who took the video.
“There is no doubt that if the state conducts a strong investigation, they can secure a conviction, [but] based on the evidence before me, it would be a travesty of justice if I deny the applicants bail,” she said.
Mkhasibe also spelt out the strict conditions attached to the bail granted to ensure they do not interfere with investigations or witnesses.
These included that they not contact state witnesses or use anyone to contact them and not interfere with the state's investigations or use anyone to do this.
Kojoana's lawyer, Mbhoni Mahlaule, said the defence was elated by the ruling handed down by Mkhasibe and it boded well for the coming trial.
“We are happy with the fact that the presiding officer agreed with our argument. If you can listen to the decision that was delivered, she pointed to the facts that were based before her and that shows the applicants had a good case for the bail application and possibly during the trial as well,” he said.
National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesperson Phindi Mjonondwane defended the NPA's decision to enrol the matter when it did as the “interests of justice” dictated this.
“Taking into consideration that there was information brought to our attention about a threat received by one of our witnesses and to promote their protection, we had to set the wheels of justice in motion. We have no regrets. We know criminal matters differ in their nature,” she said.
She, however, conceded the state's case had been “dealt a blow” over their failure to link the accused to the threatening message sent to the witness.
The next step would be finalise investigations “speedily” and prepare for trial, she said.
The matter was postponed to September 27 for further investigations.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.