Businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala has accused the magistrate who presided over his case in the Alexandra Magistrate’s Court of applying the wrong legal standard to deny him bail.
Matlala, who is behind bars at Kgosi Mampuru prison after being arrested for allegedly orchestrating the failed assassination of his ex-girlfriend, TV actress Tebogo Thobejane, among others, filed a notice of appeal in the Johannesburg High Court on Wednesday, alleging that Magistrate Syta Prinsloo erred in treating his bail application as a schedule 6 matter under the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), instead of the less stringent schedule 5.
The crux of Matlala’s appeal lies in Prinsloo’s decision to impose the higher burden of proof required under schedule 6, which applies to offences, such as premeditated murder.
Matlala said both the prosecution and the defence had agreed during the bail proceedings that the charges against him fell under schedule 5.
Despite this consensus, he said, Prinsloo applied the onerous schedule 6 standard, requiring Matlala to prove the existence of “exceptional circumstances” justifying his release.
Matlala described Prinsloo’s decision as a “fundamental misstep” that prejudiced him.
“The learned regional court magistrate erroneously found that the appellant’s bail application fell within the ambit of schedule 6 of the CPA,” the appeal document states. “This finding was made despite it being agreed between the parties that the application fell within the ambit of Schedule 5.”
Matlala further argues that the error was compounded by the magistrate’s failure to notify the parties of her intention to apply schedule 6 until the judgment stage, denying him the opportunity to present evidence tailored to the higher standard.
“Most significantly, this finding was only made at the judgment stage, which resulted in a failure to forewarn the parties timeously of this onus and the opportunity to adduce further evidence in compliance with Schedule 6 of the CPA,” the appeal notes.
He said under SA law, the distinction between schedule 5 and schedule 6 is critical in bail applications. Schedule 5, he said, places the burden on the accused to show that their release is in the interests of justice, while schedule 6 requires the accused to prove the existence of exceptional circumstances that justify their release.
In his case, he said, the charges of attempted murder and conspiracy, while serious, do not automatically fall under schedule 6, unless there is evidence of premeditation. He further said that during the bail proceedings, both the prosecution and his defence had agreed that the charges were appropriately categorised under schedule 5.
Despite this consensus, he lamented, Prinsloo ruled that the case fell under schedule 6, citing the alleged premeditated nature of the crimes. In her judgment, she stated, “The applicant is charged with offences that demonstrate a high degree of planning and orchestration, including the alleged ordering of hits on multiple individuals. These factors elevate the matter to a schedule 6 offence.”
Matlala fiercely contests this interpretation, arguing that Prinsloo had overstepped her bounds by reclassifying the charges without proper notice or justification. “The court a quo evidently and from the onset applied the incorrect test and yardstick to the evidence adduced,” the notice of appeal asserts.
Matlala said the magistrate’s decision was prejudicial, arguing that it placed an undue burden on the defence and skewed the outcome of the bail application.
“The court a quo erroneously found that the appellant was burdened with the onus to prove the existence of exceptional circumstances,” he states.
“Even though the learned magistrate found that the appellant’s application fell within the ambit of schedule 6 of the CPA, she subsequently erroneously found that the evidence had not established the existence of exceptional circumstances.”
