Drama erupted in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on Monday, 31 August when Teffo Malesela’s attempt to address the court on behalf of Cat Matlala and his four co-accused was derailed after the judge demanded proof that he had been re-admitted to practise as an advocate.
Teffo appeared before Judge Cassim Moosa at the start of Monday’s proceedings, seeking to bring what he described as a public-interest application over alleged violations of the constitutional rights of all five accused.
But his intervention quickly became a point of contention, with defence counsels telling the court that their clients were becoming increasingly agitated because court time was being taken up by Teffo’s application.
Counsel for accused number one, Advocate Riaan Gissing told the court that his client had instructed him that they should move on.
Counsel representing other accused were equally opposed to Teffo continuing.
One defence lawyer, Advocate Nardus Grover told Judge Moosa that the accused were paying for legal representation and objected to their “court time and forum” being used for Teffo’s application.
The court was also told that the Legal Practice Council had issued a statement on 22 July 2026 concerning Teffo’s status.
“We’re currently granting audience to somebody that’s got no standing in law to appear before you, speak to you, wear the gown of an advocate, or give out and pretend to be an advocate,” counsel for accused number 1, Advocate Annelene van den Heever submitted.
Teffo rejected the characterisation of his position and maintained that he was in good standing with the Legal Practice Council.
But Judge Moosa was not prepared to allow the matter to proceed without documentary proof.
The judge asked Teffo whether he was aware of the LPC statement. Teffo responded that he was not aware of it.
The judge then explained that the court would stand down his application until he could produce documentation proving that he had been re-admitted.
“I’m going to let the matter, let your application stand down to a later stage in the proceedings, on the proviso that you produce documentary evidence to this court, that, you have been re-admitted by the High Court of South Africa to practise as an advocate within this division,” Judge Moosa said.
Teffo appeared reluctant to simply accept the ruling, questioning what would happen while he waited for the court to consider the documents.
The judge, however, made it clear that the application could not proceed in its current form.
“You’re just standing from the bar,” the judge said.
Judge Moosa also pointed to the urgency of the day’s proceedings, noting that a medical practitioner, Dr Panicker Pooja was already on standby to give her evidence.
The judge further noted the visible tension among the accused seated behind Teffo.
“You’ve also heard a short while ago that there’s been severe dissent amongst the persons who are seated behind you. All five accused are becoming agitated and I can fully understand why they’re becoming agitated because they are paying monies to the legal counsel for the day. They get charged a day fee, as you should know,” said Judge Moosa.
The court ultimately issued a formal order requiring Teffo to produce proof of his re-admission before his application could be entertained.
The order recorded that Teffo was seeking to represent the Teffo Foundation and bring an application in the public interest concerning alleged violations of the constitutional rights of the five accused.
Judge Moosa said the court could not entertain the application without evidence establishing Teffo’s status as a legal practitioner.
“The court can only entertain anything on your side if you produce documentary evidence that you are properly before this court as a legal practitioner,” the judge said.
The judge also made a distinction between Teffo appearing as counsel and appearing as an ordinary member of the public on behalf of the foundation.
“If you were representing the foundation, you would have stood before this court as an ordinary member of the public seeking audience of this court,” Judge Moosa said.
The court identified two immediate problems, there was no substantive application properly before it and the court had pressing business to attend to.
Judge Moosa then issued the order: “It is hereby ordered that, one, that Mr. Tefu, who is representing the Teffo Foundation and seeking to bring an application to represent the public interests and to speak on for and on behalf of the five accused persons regarding the violation of their constitutional rights by the state, is to first produce documentary evidence of his re-admission by the High Court of South Africa Gauteng Division for admission to practice as an advocate within this division.”
Teffo then indicated that he would approach the Judge President or Deputy Judge President.
The judge stopped him short.
“You are welcome to approach the DJP. You are welcome to approach the JP, but it is this court that will have to deliberate in the matter, and it is this court that will make the decision regarding this here,” Judge Moosa said.
Teffo was then told to stand down.
