Sotheni faces 16 charges, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder and three counts of attempted murder.
Former SAPS Special Task Force, Matipandile Sotheni appears at Brakpan Magistrate’s Court for bail application in the murder case of Marius van der Merwe on May 21, 2026 in Brakpan, South Africa. It is alleged that Sotheni was the gunman who fatally shot Marius van der Merwe, who testified at Madlanga Commission as Witness D, outside his Brakpan home in December. Picture: Gallo Images/OJ Koloti
The Brakpan Magistrate’s Court has denied bail to a former member of the Special Task Force (STF) within the South African Police Service (Saps), Matipandile Sotheni.
Sotheni returned to the court on Monday to continue with his bail application. The case is connected with the murder of Marius van der Merwe, also known as “Witness D”.
Van der Merwe was shot dead at his home in Brakpan on 5 December 2025. His wife and two children survived the shooting.
Sotheni faces 16 charges, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, three counts of attempted murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, ammunition-related offences, and theft.
‘State’s case is strong’
In her ruling, the magistrate said Sotheni failed to prove that exceptional circumstances existed that necessitated his release on bail.
She said the likelihood of tampering with evidence and interference with witnesses had been established.
The state’s case against the applicant is not weak,” said the magistrate.
“The evidence has shown firstly that some of the state witnesses are known to the applicant. Secondly, the applicant has the means to identify witnesses even when their identities are concealed. Thirdly, due to his extensive training and work in the police task team and security services, he has the means and the ability to carry out the risk,” said the magistrate.
The State previously submitted that, given the type of training he has and the highly sought-after skills in the security sector, he may secure employment in countries where extradition processes may be difficult.
“His reply thereto is not an undertaking, but only that it is not true,” said the magistrate.
Docket information
The State also argued that Sotheni was privy to information on the dockets that only police officials would know.
“Both parties confirmed that the contents of the police docket, except his ruling statement, were not disclosed. However, he knows the fact that the police docket went missing. He continued to assert that the state is working on a second docket. He does not disclose how he got this information. The state confirmed that the docket indeed went missing at some point. However, the original docket was recovered, and there is no second docket,” said the magistrate.
“He continued to comment on other aspects of the case, such as the fact that the deceased children were crying at the scene and the response time periods of the emergency personnel, as well as the mapping of the scene area despite his initial evidence that he did not know where he was in Brakpan on all three relevant locations.
“The facts further show that there was tampering and concealment of evidence in that the firearm used in the commission of the offence was fired, and both carrier and bolt from a different firearm were swapped.”
The case was postponed to 30 July 2026 for further investigation.
Sotheni a ‘family man’
He previously cited his family responsibilities to argue for his release on bail. He said his family would continue to suffer in his absence.
The accused also argued that the state’s case against him was “weak”, saying it had not demonstrated sufficient grounds to keep him in custody.
Last week, his legal representative, Nthabiseng Mohumane, cited several cases, including Katiso ‘KT’ Molefe’s, to argue for her client’s release on bail.
In October last year, Molefe was released on bail after winning his appeal in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, following the Alexandra Magistrate’s Court’s denial of bail on 20 August.
He was granted bail of R400 000 in connection with the murders of popular musician and club owner DJ Sumbody – whose real name was Oupa Sefoka – and his two bodyguards, Sibusiso Mokoena and Sandile Myeza, in Woodmead, Gauteng.
During this time, Molefe was already out on R100 000 bail granted by the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, which had overturned an earlier magistrate’s court ruling that denied him release. This case is related to the killing of Vereeniging engineer Armand Swart.
Sotheni’s legal representative cited this case as a precedent that must be taken into consideration in his bail application. If Molefe could avail himself for court proceedings after his release on bail, Sotheni could, too, she argued.
The defence further argued that the state had split the charges into several to give the court the impression that Sotheni is “dangerous”, when he is not.
State ‘has a strong case’
The state argued that, in his initial affidavit, Sotheni stated he had two children, only to say in his supplementary affidavit, read in court on Friday, that he had three children. The state further questioned his residential addresses, noting that his current lease is month-to-month.
State prosecutors argued that if Sotheni were released on bail, he would interfere with witnesses. They further alleged that he was privy to information not in the public domain, which they said indicated he remained in contact with former colleagues.
