The EMPD senior officer's lawyer argued that he should be charged as an 'accessory after the fact'.
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department (EMPD) deputy chief Julius Mkhwanazi appears at the Brakpan Magistrate’s Court on 6 August 2026. Picture: Gallo Images/OJ Koloti
Suspended Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department (EMPD) deputy chief Julius Mkhwanazi’s lawyer has challenged the state’s decision to charge him under Schedule 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), arguing in court that the allegations against his client do not justify such serious charges.
Mkhwanazi (accused five), along with EMPD officers Keisha-Leigh Stols (accused four) and Adrian MacKenzie (accused three), appeared in the Brakpan Magistrate’s Court on Thursday, 6 August 2026.
They were joined by Cobus Janse Van Rensburg (accused one) of security company Ghostguard Defensive Strategies and former South African Police Service (Saps) officer Bhekokwakhe Sibande (accused two).
All five are facing charges linked to Emmanuel Mbense’s killing.
Emmanuel Mbense murder investigation
The arrests, carried out on Wednesday, 5 August, follow a probe by the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid), which identified 12 individuals allegedly linked to the murder.
Mbense had been linked to a business robbery in Boksburg prior to his death.
The law enforcement authorities and private security personnel raided his home on 14 April 2022, during which he was allegedly assaulted and suffered blunt force trauma to the head.
His body was discovered the following day, 15 April, at Spaarwater Dam in Duduza, Nigel.
Testimony presented at the Madlanga commission alleged that Mbense’s body was dumped at the dam by slain private security officer Marius van der Merwe, also known as Witness D, on Mkhwanazi’s instruction.
EMPD’s Julius Mkhwanazi disputes nature of charges
At the centre of Thursday’s proceedings was the classification of the charges against Mkhwanazi.
The state, led by Advocate Nceba Ntelwa and Advocate Velile Makasana, confirmed that it is pursuing charges under Schedule 6 against the suspects.
“The case is a schedule 6; there’s murder that happened in the course of robbery by a group of people.
“The state opposes all bail releases on all applications if they apply for bail,” Ntelwa told the court.
Schedule 6 offences are among the most serious under South African law.
Under the Section 60(11) of the CPA, accused persons are required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances in order to be granted bail.
However, Mkhwanazi’s lawyer, Advocate Peter Wilkins, argued that his client’s alleged role in Mbense’s murder does not meet the Schedule 6 threshold.
“It is quite clear that accused number five, on their version in the charge sheet, can at best be an accessory after the fact of the murder,” Wilkins told the court.
“On these facts, there’s no evidence of a Schedule 6 offence that accused number five could be involved,” he said.
Wilkins also questioned the state’s stance on bail, saying the defence is “perplexed” by the decision to oppose it.
He highlighted that in previous Schedule 5 and 6 matters involving Mkhwanazi, the state had not taken a similar position and claimed that no explanation had been provided.
The advocate further indicated that the defence would be seeking additional information to support a forthcoming bail application.
‘The state is playing games’
Concerns over the state’s handling of the case were echoed by Gerhald Nel, representing Van Rensburg.
He claimed that the state was mum on whether the investigation has been finalised.
“The state, with the greatest respect, is playing games,” Nel said on Thursday.
Nel indicated that the defence had requested additional documentation, including the affidavit used to secure the J50 arrest warrant.
“I have the J50. I just need the affidavit then we are ready to proceed [with bail],” the attorney added.
Advocate Crystal Keevy, who represents Stols and MacKenzie, also contended that the state had failed to present sufficient information for its decision to oppose bail.
The prosecution asked for a postponement while the defence teams awaited further particulars.
“That would give me time to reflect on their application and see which information I can give in to,” Ntelwa said.
Magistrate Audrey Mashigo ultimately agreed that the matter could not proceed.
“I’m quite convinced that they [the defence] are not ready to proceed with the bail application.
“They would like to engage with the state pertaining to certain information,” Mashigo said.
The case has been postponed to 13 August 2026.
