LISTEN | Arrest warrant will be issued if 'Jub Jub' fails to appear in court in December

A no-nonsense magistrate warned rape accused TV personality Molemo “Jub Jub” Maarohanye to be present in court when the case against him resumes on December 11 or face possible arrest.

Maarohanye's defence tried to negotiate a different date before the matter was postponed in the Johannesburg magistrate's court on Wednesday.

Maarohanye faces 13 charges including multiple counts of rape, indecent assault, assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and several counts of kidnapping, according to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).

He is out on R10,000 bail. The alleged offences were committed during 2006 and 2009. 

The drama started after a request for a postponement was made to allow the NPA time to consult witnesses about additional information requested by the Uyajola 9/9 presenter's defence.

“We've requested further particulars from the state and proceeded to make further arrangements as to when they will comply with our request. So if the court will be amenable, we've agreed on certain dates which are subject to the court's approval and the state has indicated they need to consult the witnesses as far as the gathering of the particulars we are requesting,” his attorney Ntsako Baloyi said.

Baloyi proposed two possible dates, December 11 and January 16, “subject to the court's approval”.

Listen here: 

Prosecutor Agnes Bezuidenhout raised concern about the first date, given that most people would be on holiday and it may be difficult to reach the complainants.

She also proposed January 16, but magistrate Betty Khumalo settled on December 11 to avoid a delay in setting the trial date.

“This matter is going to be remanded to December 11. Mr Maarohanye, your bail is extended, you are warned to be back in court on [that date] at 8.30am,” Khumalo said.

“It's still a provisional remand because there's further particulars being sought by your legal representatives and the state needs more time to consult the witnesses.

“So I don't want excuses from both parties. On the next court date, a trial date has to be set because the ... investigation has been concluded so there's no point in wasting time. So you are warned for 8.30am on December 11. Failure to appear, you know a warrant of arrest may be authorised against you,” she said.

After consulting his client, Baloyi tried to push for the January date, citing unavailability on Maarohanye's part as he will be touring the whole month.

The irate magistrate asked why the first date was proposed by the defence without consulting Maarohanye.

Despite Baloyi's attempts to explain the bungle, Khumalo stuck to the original date as she had already made it an order and was “not inclined to change my order”.

"[That date] should not have been proposed from the onset if you knew your client was not available. I'll leave it at that, if your client is not available on that date, a warrant of arrest will be authorised,” she said.

Another issue that came up in court was that of the leaking of information contained in the docket to media. 

Bezuidenhout confirmed she had raised this with the defence and asked the court to make an order prohibiting it.

Khumalo agreed.

“It is contemptuous to this court because should that person be found, I'll have to do an inquiry for the person who has leaked that information. 

“The state and defence must work together to ensure that information regarding whose witnesses and what they are going to say is still in this court's purvey. That is totally discouraged,” she said.

TimesLIVE