Bethwell Mzamo Cele concluded his three-day testimony.
Bethwell Mzamo Cele appears in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on 22 July 2026. Picture: Gallo Images / Sharon Seretlo
The attempted murder trial linked to alleged underworld figure Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala got heated in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on Thursday, 23 July 2026, as the defence sharply criticised the state’s witness over his conduct.
Matlala is on trial alongside his wife, Tsakane Matlala, together with alleged hitmen Musa Kekana and Tiego Floyd Mabusela, facing a total of 25 charges.
Also implicated in the matter is Mabusela’s daughter, Nthabiseng Zandile Nzama.
Collectively, they are facing 25 charges linked to a series of serious criminal allegations.
The trial is currently focused on a 10 August 2022 shooting at the Centurion Residential Estate and Country Club, where taxi boss Johannes “Joe Ferrari” Sibanyoni was allegedly shot twice.
Cat Matlala attempted murder trial enters fourth day
The court has been hearing evidence from Bethwell Mzamo Cele, a former Bidvest Protea Coin security guard, who described being caught in a shootout with two armed men.
Cele previously testified that he took cover behind a tree and returned fire at two men allegedly armed with AK-47 rifles and travelling in a white BMW.
He claimed he discharged at least 15 rounds from his employer-issued Sarsılmaz 9mm firearm.
However, under cross-examination by defence lawyer Annelene van den Heever, his account came under sustained pressure on the fourth day of the trial.
Van den Heever questioned Cele’s decision-making and training regarding firearms.
He explained that he assesses the environment before taking action but acknowledged that he would act in self-defence if threatened.
“When they start firing, I am forced to retaliate. By doing that, I am trying to protect the firearm that is in my possession at the time,” the witness said.
He further warned of the risks of inaction, stating that an attacker could seize his weapon and use it to “kill many people”.
The security guard conceded that poor lighting conditions made it impossible for him to identify or describe the shooters.
Joe Sibanyoni shooting
The defence also challenged Cele’s recollection of events surrounding Sibanyoni’s injuries.
Van den Heever described it as “interesting” that Cele appeared to know the victim had been shot twice in the stomach, raising questions about how he obtained that information.
Cele denied identifying Sibanyoni at the scene, explaining that he only witnessed a severely injured individual and later learned the victim’s identity from others.
“They said it was Mr Sibanyoni that had been shot, and I said I don’t know him.”
Another point of contention emerged over forensic findings.
Van den Heever told the court that none of the cartridges collected from the scene were linked to a 9mm firearm, directly contradicting Cele’s claim that he fired multiple shots.
Cele rejected the assertion.
“Those are lies,” he told the court, insisting he had pointed out the location of his spent cartridges to the police and that they were subsequently collected as evidence.
Contradictions between testimony and statements
The defence further highlighted inconsistencies between Cele’s oral testimony and his three sworn statements.
Van den Heever pointed out that his earlier statements did not mention that the attackers fired at him or that he acted in self-defence.
“I do not see any mention of the fact that you fired shots at anybody in self-defence. Correct?”
Cele agreed.
She also referred to the third affidavit indicating that Cele heard gunfire directed at him after taking cover.
The witness dismissed this as an administrative error in the typed version of his statement.
“It’s the typist’s problem, not mine,” Cele said.
Van den Heever challenged that explanation, arguing that police would not record information he had not provided.
“They would know that that would constitute defeating the ends of justice,” she said.
In response, Cele suggested that authorities may have deliberately mishandled aspects of his statements.
Van den Heever characterised the allegation as a claim of a broader cover-up.
“You now say there’s a conspiracy to make this matter not exist – in other words, go away. You say they started here and are continuing. Explain to the court what you mean.”
Defence seeks to have testimony rejected
Following extensive questioning, Van den Heever indicated she would argue that Cele’s conduct in court undermined his credibility.
“From the time you were first cross-examined two days, you were belligerent. You answer questions with questions.
“You just refuse to cooperate in this court, and I am going to argue to the court that it must reject your evidence,” Van den Heever said.
“That is not true,” Cele replied.
The trial is set to resume on Friday, with the state expected to call a new witness.
