Fugitive preacher Shepherd Bushiri faces mounting legal pressure after the Pretoria High Court dismissed a bid by his alleged co-accused to halt a racketeering prosecution, reinforcing the strength and legality of the case he fled.
In a judgment handed down on April 2, Judge Mahomed Ismail dismissed both a review application and a separate attempt to remove prosecutors in the matter involving Willah Joseph Mudolo and others, effectively clearing the way for the long-delayed trial to proceed.
The ruling affirms the validity of charges under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, which form a central part of the case that once included Bushiri and his wife, Mary, before they left South Africa in 2020.
Mudolo had argued that the prosecution was unlawful because the required authorisation from the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) was only issued years after his arrest.
He contended that this delay rendered the charges invalid and unconstitutional.
But the court rejected that argument, relying on established precedent to find that the timing validated the prosecution.
“Once the written authorisation is granted … the prosecution was lawful,” the court held, making clear that such authorisation need only be in place before the accused is called upon to plead.
Derailing the trial
The court also dismissed claims that the authorisation had been irrational or improperly granted.
It accepted the state’s position that the national director of public prosecutions was entitled to rely on a prosecution memorandum, draft indictment and summary of facts, rather than the full case docket, when deciding to authorise racketeering charges.
In doing so, the court endorsed a relatively low threshold for rationality, noting that there need only be “some rhyme or reason” linking the decision to its purpose.
Equally significant was the court’s rejection of allegations against the prosecution team. Mudolo and his co-accused had accused the prosecutors of bias, misconduct and pursuing a personal vendetta. The court found no factual basis for these claims.
“The evidence does not support the perception…that the [prosecutors] acted improperly,” Ismail said, adding that there was no indication that their conduct was wilful or in disregard of court orders.
The application to remove the prosecutors was also dismissed, with the court stressing that such relief requires proof of actual bias and should only be granted in exceptional circumstances.
“A prosecutor cannot simply be replaced willy nilly because an accused person is not satisfied,” the judge said.
In a pointed observation, the court suggested that several of the steps taken by the accused—including complaints to regulatory bodies, attempts to subpoena prosecutors, and even laying criminal charges against them—were aimed at derailing the trial.
One such move was described as “a desperate attempt…to stop her from being a prosecutor in the matter”.
The NPA has welcomed the ruling, saying it vindicates its position and clears the way for the trial to finally begin.
Bid to remove prosecutors
In a statement issued on April 30, NPA spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago said the application formed part of a broader effort to interfere with the prosecution, including attempts to remove prosecutors from the case.
The authority also raised concern about what it described as “Stalingrad tactics” by the accused.
“These tactics have not only delayed the commencement of the trial but have also undermined the rights of the co-accused and the broader community to a fair and expeditious resolution of the matter,” Kganyago said.
He added that such conduct “reflects a deliberate abuse of legal processes” and would not deter the NPA from pursuing the case.
Although the application does not cite Bushiri, the judgment directly affects his ongoing extradition battle.
The charges against Mudolo and others stem from the same case in which Bushiri and his wife were previously accused.
By confirming that the prosecution is lawful and that the prosecutors have acted properly, the ruling undercuts arguments that the case is flawed or politically driven.
The trial against Mudolo and five co-accused is now set to commence on May 4 in the Pretoria High Court, where they face charges including racketeering, fraud and money laundering.
- The Pretoria High Court dismissed attempts by Willah Joseph Mudolo and co-accused to halt racketeering charges linked to fugitive preacher Shepherd Bushiri's case, allowing the trial to proceed.
- The court ruled the prosecution under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act is lawful despite delays in National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) authorisation, which need only occur before plea.
- Claims of prosecutor bias, misconduct, and improper authorisation were rejected, with the court emphasizing the need for clear proof of bias to remove prosecutors.
- The ruling criticized accused individuals’ tactics—such as complaints and subpoenas against prosecutors—as attempts to derail the trial, which has been delayed since Bushiri fled South Africa in 2020.
- The NPA welcomed the decision, stating it vindicates their position and enables the trial of Mudolo and co-accused, scheduled to begin May 4, to move forward amid ongoing extradition issues for Bushiri.
Fugitive preacher
In a judgment handed down on April 2, Judge Mahomed Ismail dismissed both a review application and a separate attempt to remove prosecutors in the matter involving Willah Joseph Mudolo and others, effectively clearing the way for the long-delayed trial to proceed.
Mudolo had argued that the prosecution was unlawful because the required authorisation from the National
He contended that this delay rendered the charges invalid and unconstitutional.
But the court rejected that argument, relying on established precedent to find that the timing validated the prosecution.
“Once the written authorisation is granted … the prosecution was lawful,” the court held, making clear that such authorisation need only be in place before the accused is called upon to plead.
It accepted the state's position that the national director of public prosecutions was entitled to rely on a prosecution memorandum, draft indictment and of facts, rather than the full case docket, when deciding to authorise racketeering charges.
In doing so, the court endorsed a relatively low threshold for rationality, noting that there need only be “some rhyme or reason” linking the decision to its purpose.
Equally significant was the court’s rejection of allegations against the prosecution team. Mudolo and his co-accused had accused the prosecutors of bias, misconduct and pursuing a personal vendetta.
“
“A prosecutor cannot simply be replaced willy nilly because an accused person is not satisfied,” the judge said.
In a pointed observation, the court suggested that several of the steps taken by the accused—including complaints to regulatory bodies, attempts to subpoena prosecutors, and even laying criminal charges against them—were aimed at derailing the trial.
One such move was described as “a desperate attempt…to stop her from being a prosecutor in the matter”.
In a statement issued on April 30, NPA spokesperson Kaizer
“
He added that such conduct “reflects a deliberate abuse of legal processes” and would not deter the NPA from pursuing the case.
By confirming that the prosecution is lawful and that the prosecutors have acted properly, the ruling undercuts arguments that the case is flawed or politically driven.
