Matiphandile Sotheni (41), accused of the murder of Brenthurst resident Marius van der Merwe, also known as Witness D, appeared before the Brakpan Regional Court yesterday (May 18), reports Brakpan Herald.

His bail application, as well as the state’s opposition to it, were heard by the court. The decision to grant or deny him bail was postponed to Thursday, due to additional charges against him that were not revealed to the defence beforehand.

The defence, in an email received on April 14, was informed of seven charges, which are conspiracy to commit murder, murder, three counts of attempted murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.

The prosecution delivered 16 charges to the court during the hearing, spreading the unlawful possession of ammunition charge over four separate charges, one for each type of ammunition found in his Johannesburg residence.

There were also separate charges for each type for failure to store or safeguard the ammunition, one for failure to safeguard a firearm, and one for theft of SAPS firearms and ammunition.

The defence noted that their lack of knowledge about the additional nine charges was not due to malice from the prosecution, but a simple miscommunication.

The court then heard the bail application affidavit from Sotheni, as well as the affidavit from the investigating officer opposing bail.

In Sotheni’s affidavit, he cited a rental property that needs to be renewed, two minor children for whom he is responsible, a portion of land on which he runs a chicken farm which needs his attention, and his employment which is under threat if he remains in custody.

He stated in his affidavit that he would not be able to pay the rent, his children’s school fees or legal fees if he loses his employment.

“I trust the South African legal system, and that the facts will show I did not kill anyone, and wasn’t in possession of ammunition. There is no evidence that will demonstrate that I have a propensity to violence,” he said.

He further cites a lack of criminal history or violent outbursts as evidence that he would not commit violence, should he be set free.

“I don’t own any assets outside of the Republic of South Africa, and have no relatives outside the Republic,” he continued.

He also claimed that he has no knowledge of who the witnesses are, nor any way to access that information, and therefore would be unable to threaten or intimidate them into silence.

In his affidavit he explained that while privately employed between 2019 and 2024, he met Wiandre Pretorius, the other suspect in Van der Merwe’s murder, who committed suicide in February in Dalview.

He says that they occasionally communicated via WhatsApp, telephonically and later in person, after testimony was heard in the Madlanga Commission implicating Pretorius in the murder of Emmanuel Mbense.

Sotheni stated that he did not know Van der Merwe, nor had any problem with him. He claims that he saw on the news that Van der Merwe had been killed.

He noted that alleged security footage of the murder showed a white utility vehicle, not the black Suzuki Swift he was driving, and that the white bakkie was abandoned and recovered in Alexandra.

He stated that the prosecution has no hard evidence against him, and that he is likely to be found not guilty, and therefore should be allowed bail to ensure he has a life to return to.

The prosecution countered him on every single claim, citing ballistic evidence, vehicle tracker data and cellphone usage data.

Against the special circumstances claim made by Sotheni, the prosecution cited that both his girlfriend and wife have gainful employment and are fully capable of meeting the financial requirements Sotheni cited.

They also stated that, given Sotheni’s skills and experience, he could easily find international employment in a country where extradition is difficult, and that the possibility of life imprisonment gives strong incentive for Sotheni to flee the country.

They further state that the method used to commit the crime, which also endangered Van der Merwe’s wife and children, indicates a strong degree of violence, which they claim proves a strong likelihood that he will intimidate or influence witnesses.

His history with the SAPS was also cited as a means to, through connections, tamper with evidence and witnesses, and how, even if not directly, just the fact of his release could strike fear in witnesses and discourage them from co-operating.

Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel.

Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal.