Key Takeaways
- Nthabiseng Zandile Nzama, the fifth accused in the Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala trial, asked the Johannesburg High Court to be excused from hearing evidence that does not pertain to her so she could devote time to her honours‑degree studies.
- Judge Cassim Moosa denied the request, stressing that criminal proceedings ordinarily require the accused’s presence and noting that the indictment alleges a common‑purpose doctrine that could bind Nzama to more than the three money‑laundering counts she faces.
- The prosecution contends that a white BMW linked to the shootings of taxi boss Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni and a first witness was at one stage registered in Nzama’s name, attempting to tie her to the broader conspiracy.
- The trial features a separate “trial‑within‑a‑trial” hearing to decide whether evidence obtained during the arrest of alleged gunman Musa Kekana can be used, highlighting procedural safeguards around unlawful arrest claims.
- Witness testimony concerning a long‑sleeved mustard‑coloured shirt worn by the driver of a Hyundai i20 has been sharply contested, illustrating the evidentiary challenges the prosecution faces in linking Kekana to the crime scene.
Background of the Application
On Monday, the Johannesburg High Court heard an application brought by Advocate Timothy Chauke on behalf of Nthabiseng Zandile Nzama, the fifth accused in the high‑profile Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala case. Nzama sought to be excused from attending those portions of the trial that dealt with evidence unrelated to her three money‑laundering charges, arguing that her continued presence served no practical purpose and impeded her ability to focus on her honours‑degree studies in commerce at Stadio Higher Education. She submitted an affidavit outlining the strain caused by the trial’s length and the daily commute between Pretoria and Johannesburg, which left her physically and mentally exhausted and with little time for academic work.
Legal Basis for the Request
Chauke invoked the Criminal Procedure Act, requesting that Nzama be allowed to be absent while her affidavit be entered into the record. He emphasized that her legal team would remain in court throughout the proceedings and that she would return immediately should any evidence directly implicate her. The state did not oppose the application, indicating a willingness to accommodate the accused’s educational commitments, at least in principle.
Judicial Concerns About Presence
Judge Cassim Moosa, however, raised fundamental objections. He noted that, as a general rule, criminal trials must be conducted in the presence of the accused, a safeguard designed to ensure transparency, the right to confront witnesses, and the integrity of the judicial process. The judge drew counsel’s attention to a paragraph in the amended indictment that alleges all five accused acted with a common purpose to commit the offences. Under the doctrine of common purpose, Nzama could be held liable for acts beyond the three specific money‑laundering counts she faces, thereby justifying her continued presence even when the evidence appears tangential.
Prosecution’s Theory Linking Nzama to the Violence
The prosecution signaled that it would begin its case with the shootings rather than the money‑laundering allegations. It intends to argue that a white BMW, said to have transported the gunmen who fired on the first witness and on taxi boss Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyoni, was at one stage registered in Nzama’s name. By establishing this connection, the state aims to demonstrate that Nzama participated in—or at least facilitated—the violent hit‑plots ordered by tenderpreneur Matlala, thereby bringing her within the ambit of the common‑purpose allegation.
Outcome of the Application
After a brief adjournment, Judge Moosa delivered his ruling: “It is ordered that the application for the relief to be granted is hereby refused.” Consequently, Nzama must remain in court for the entirety of the proceedings, regardless of whether the evidence under discussion directly pertains to her three charges. The decision underscores the court’s commitment to procedural fairness and the presumption that the accused’s presence is essential unless a statutory exception clearly applies.
The Wider Context of the Matlala Case
Nzama is one of five accused in a case built around three alleged hit‑plots orchestrated by Matlala. The intended targets were Sibanyoni, Matlala’s former girlfriend actress Tebogo Thobejane, and music producer Seunkie “DJ Vetteys” Mokubung. Bystanders caught in the cross‑fire during each attack have resulted in the five defendants facing 11 counts of attempted murder among the total 25 charges. The remaining counts encompass conspiracy to commit murder, fraud, money laundering, and the illegal possession of prohibited firearms and ammunition. Alongside Nzama sit Matlala himself, alleged gunmen Musa Kekana and Tiego Floyd Mabusela, and Matlala’s wife, Tsakani Matlala.
The “Trial‑Within‑a‑Trial” on Evidence Admissibility
Earlier on Monday, the court heard the first cross‑examination of a private‑security officer, the state’s last witness on a roll of 88, whose testimony could not be filmed or photographed. His evidence forms part of a separate hearing—commonly termed a “trial‑within‑a‑trial”—convened to determine whether certain pieces of evidence may be admitted at all. Specifically, the court must decide whether items obtained by police when Kekana was arrested on 17 April 2024 can be used against him, after Kekana contended that his arrest was unlawful.
Witness Testimony About the Mustard‑Coloured Shirt
The officer testified that he observed two men arrive at a property in Kew, a Johannesburg suburb, in a white Hyundai i20 and depart in a Mercedes‑Benz Viano, identifying the driver by his long‑sleeved mustard‑coloured top. Defence advocate Riaan Gissing challenged this identification, arguing that “there are millions of long‑sleeved mustard‑coloured shirts,” and therefore the garment alone could not prove Kekana’s presence as the driver. The witness conceded the point but insisted that the shirt he saw on the man entering the property was the same as that on the man leaving it.
Gissing then pointed out that the officer’s arrest‑night statement described only the mustard top and omitted any facial features, suggesting that the officer never actually saw the driver’s face. The witness rejected this inference, maintaining that he had indeed observed the driver’s visage.
Defence’s Alternative Narrative
Acting on Kekana’s instructions, Gissing put forward an alternative scenario: Kekana was at his home in Kew when a tenant arrived in the Hyundai, then left in his Mercedes with another man and drove to a friend’s house where police were waiting. The witness rejected this account, asserting that it did not match what he had seen. After the exchange, the officer was excused, and the state called its third witness, whose testimony continues as the trial‑within‑a‑trial proceeds.
Implications for the Ongoing Proceedings
The refusal of Nzama’s application and the ongoing evidentiary debate over Kekana’s arrest highlight the procedural complexities inherent in high‑profile, multi‑defendant criminal matters. While the accused’s personal circumstances—such as academic commitments—are sympathetic, the court’s insistence on presence reflects a broader judicial priority: safeguarding the right to a fair trial by ensuring that all parties can confront evidence as it unfolds. Meanwhile, the contested identification evidence underscores the challenges the prosecution faces in linking specific individuals to the violent acts, setting the stage for a closely contested battle over what the jury may ultimately hear.
This summary captures the essential facts, legal arguments, and procedural developments presented in the original report, organized under clear sub‑headings for ease of reading.