Legal storm brews in Alexandra Magistrate Court
Alexandra’s courtroom lit up on July 11 as Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala and co-accused appeared before the court, facing charges over an alleged assassination plot.
The Alexandra Magistrate’s Court drew intense media attention during the litigation of a high-profile case involving controversial businessman and tenderpreneur Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala. It marked one of the most widely covered legal battles in Alexandra in recent years, following the 2024 Malcom X proceedings and the 2023 murder trial of Kirsten Kluyts.
Matlala, his wife Tsakani Matlala, Musa Kekana, and Tiego Floyd Mabusela appeared in the Alexandra Magistrates’ Court on July 11, accused of orchestrating an assassination attempt on Matlala’s former partner, actress Tebogo Thobejane, in October 2023. The accused face charges of attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and money laundering.
Read more: Watch | Alexandra Magistrate’s court postpones case against Vusimuzi ‘Cat’ Matlala and co-accused
The charges stem from a violent ambush on the N1 highway near Sandton, where Thobejane and two other passengers were driving when their vehicle was shot at multiple times, leaving one of the passengers wounded.
During the proceedings, the defence attorney Christo Meiring expressed concerns about the State withholding critical evidence. On June 25, the State provided a memory stick containing only the docket’s A section, which the defence claimed was incomplete.
“We realised there’s a lot of information missing when we compared it with statements from one of the investigating officers’ affidavits,” the defence argued. They demanded access to the docket’s B and C sections, noting that these contain crucial information.
The State countered that the withheld documents were gathered solely for a bail application that never materialised and have ‘no reflection on the merits of the case,’ and further dismissed the defence’s application as lacking legal basis.
However, the defence pressed further, noting that the prosecution’s case that money was paid from Matlala’s account to finance the alleged hit relies on Matlala’s bank statements, but the defence did not receive these bank statements or the Section 205 subpoena for them. The State admitted this might be an oversight, promising to provide the statements.
The defence also raised concerns about evidence obtained from Matlala’s cellphone, with his signed consent. They argued this consent was given without his attorney present, and the State had not disclosed the full scope of what was found on the device.
Magistrate Reiner Boshoff dismissed the defence’s application to access other sections of the dockets, noting, “At this stage, I am going to dismiss the application. The State will grant you the required information as it said, and as it undertook to do.”
The case has been postponed to August 26 to allow for the centralisation of two additional dockets from Pretoria West and Lyttelton and to allow for the matter to be transferred to the High Court.
Follow us on our Whatsapp channel, Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok for the latest updates and inspiration!
