According to court documents, the substances were found to have an estimated street value of R2 million.
Two Nigerian nationals accused of drug trafficking worth R2 million have lost their bail appeal in the Northern Cape High Court.
Elizabeth Dominike and Christopher Evurulubi will remain in custody pending trial after Acting Judge Adriaan Olivier dismissed their appeal on 2 September 2025.
The pair were arrested on 28 May 2025 and face charges under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, as well as money laundering charges.
They are scheduled to stand trial in the Upington District Court.
Drugs found in vehicle compartments
Police discovered undesirable dependence-producing substances hidden in various compartments of Evurulubi’s vehicle while he was driving.
According to court documents, the substances were found to have an estimated street value of R2 million.
Acting Senior Magistrate Doll Mokoto initially denied bail on 18 June 2025. The magistrate’s decision formed the basis of the unsuccessful appeal.
Court finds likelihood of trial evasion
Acting Judge Olivier upheld the lower court’s decision, citing several factors that suggested the appellants would likely evade trial if released.
The court found that both accused are in South Africa illegally without valid visas, residential permits, or work permits.
“I am of the considered view that a likelihood does exist that the appellants will evade their trial and that, as a consequence, it is not in the interest of justice to release either appellant on bail,” Olivier stated in his judgment.
The judge emphasised that the combination of factors created an unacceptable risk.
“If all of the above is taken into consideration, in other words, the seriousness of the allegations against the appellants, the seriousness of the punishment that they might face, the fact that both presented incorrect/false information to the court/members of Saps [South African Police Service], the fact that neither has any ties to the area of jurisdiction of the court where they are to stand trial, and the fact that both are in the country illegally.”
ALSO READ: Smoking cannabis and driving: Can the metro cops bust you?
Immigration violations and previous involvement with illegal substances
The court heard that Dominike, 39, made only one unsuccessful visa renewal application approximately 11 years ago. She has made no subsequent applications, despite residing in the country illegally.
Meanwhile, Evurulubi, 43, applied for visa renewals on three occasions.
Two applications were rejected because he used fraudulent documents.
The court found he entered South Africa on fraudulent papers or using someone else’s passport.
Both appellants initially provided incorrect addresses to the police and the court. Dominike gave false information on one occasion, while Evurulubi did so twice.
The judgment revealed that Evurulubi was previously involved in a 2022 incident involving illegal substances.
That matter was withdrawn for further investigation.
“At the time of the bail application proceedings in the court a quo, a second vehicle belonging to the 2nd appellant was found to be conveying illegal substances.”
ALSO READ: Thembekile Letlape murder: Pastry Princess’ killer avoids life sentence
Personal circumstances considered
Dominike described herself as a single, self-employed hairdresser, earning approximately R11 000 monthly. She claimed to be unaware of the drugs in the vehicle, stating she was merely a passenger.
Evurulubi told the court that he is married to a South African citizen and has four dependent children. He works as a self-employed musician and taxi driver, earning approximately R12 000 per month.
The original magistrate had reasoned: “The applicants have evaded the rule of law pertaining to being legal immigrants; it is a mystery as to how they have managed to secure businesses and for several years lived in the Republic without renewing their visa.
“I am further persuaded that there exists a likelihood they will evade trial, as it appears they have resources to be undetected by law enforcement agencies and can be untraceable and that if released on bail, they will not attend trial.”
Mokoto also noted concerns about repeat offending.
She said other factors outweigh the applicants’ personal circumstances, and no bail conditions can address the state’s legitimate concern that they may commit a Schedule 1 offence.
Strong state case cited
Furthermore, Mokoto found the state had a strong case based on police receiving a tip-off and discovering drugs in Evurulubi’s vehicle.
She noted the substances were taken for analysis with an estimated street value exceeding R2 million.
“The evidence of the investigating officer demonstrates that indeed the state does have a strong case, as illustrated by the fact that the police received a tip-off and the alleged drugs were found in the second applicant’s vehicle,” Mokoto stated in her original ruling.
The magistrate also emphasised the immigration violations, stating: “The immigration officer has also uncontested evidence that the two applicants are illegal immigrants who not only reside illegally in the country but also conduct their businesses illegally as they do not have permits as they are not citizens nor do they have permits to conduct businesses in the Republic of South Africa.”
ALSO READ: 5 SANDF members caught with illicit cigarettes granted bail
No ties to trial jurisdiction
The court found that neither appellant has emotional, family, community, or occupational ties to the region where they will be tried. Both reside in Gauteng, far from the Upington trial venue.
Neither holds assets within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
The court heard no evidence about how continued incarceration would impact their family and professional lives.
Perpetuating illegality concern
Olivier expressed concern that releasing the appellants while in the country illegally would perpetuate an illegality.
He acknowledged the general principle that illegal immigration status alone should not disqualify someone from bail, but found this case different.
“I hold the view that the release of the appellants on bail, whilst they are in the country illegally, would be to perpetuate an illegality, and that this court should not allow this to be the case,” he said.
The judge also criticised the quality of evidence presented by the appellant.
“I hold the view that a court should be careful to attach too much weight to statements made by applicants for bail in terms of section 60 of the CPA, especially in instances such as the present matter where the affidavit deposed to is in fact a draft pre-prepared document,” he stated.
ALSO READ: Cocaine worth R56 million found on ship off KZN coast
Liberty rights balanced against justice interests
The court considered constitutional rights to personal freedom while weighing justice interests.
Olivier referenced the Constitutional Court’s emphasis on liberty as foundational to South Africa’s constitutional order.
“That value, which is foundational to our constitutional order, may never be treated lightly,” the court noted, quoting from President of the Republic of South Africa v Zuma and Others.
However, the court found the interests of justice outweighed liberty considerations in this case.
Appeal standard strictly applied
As drug trafficking is a Schedule 5 offence, the accused were required to prove that their release is in the interests of justice. However, the court found they failed to do so.
Olivier emphasised that appeal courts can only interfere with bail decisions if satisfied the lower court was wrong.
The court referenced S v Barber, which established that appeal courts should not substitute their own views for magistrates’ discretionary decisions.
“Although this court may have a different view, it should not substitute its own view for that of the magistrate because that would be an unfair interference with the magistrate’s exercise of his discretion,” the judgment noted.
ALSO READ: Suspended City Power operators offer to replace a cable they allegedly stole
First-time offenders with no pending matters
Both appellants are first-time offenders with no other pending criminal matters.
The court acknowledged this factor but found it insufficient to outweigh concerns about trial evasion.
Their travel documents remain in police custody, limiting their ability to leave the country immediately.
Serious charges warrant serious consideration
The court noted the serious nature of drug trafficking charges and potential sentences upon conviction.
Combined with the substantial value of substances allegedly involved, this created a significant incentive to flee.
The judgment found these factors, alongside immigration violations and lack of local ties, created an unacceptable risk if the appellants were released pending trial.
“I am therefore in agreement with the decision of the Magistrate, and I will consequently not interfere with the decision of the Magistrate to deny bail to the appellants,” said Oliver.
READ NEXT: Mpumalanga hospital worker arrested with human placentas
