Johannesburg -An application to excuse the fifth accused, Nthabiseng Zandile Nzama in the trial of Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala from having to attend proceedings that do not concern her was refused by the Johannesburg High Court on Monday.
Advocate Timothy Chauke for Nzama asked the court to excuse his client until the State leads evidence that involves her, arguing that the bulk of the charges do not affect her and that her studies were being harmed by daily attendance.
He told the court she is a student, doing an Honours degree in Commerce and that her legal representatives would remain in court at all times.
She pleaded that she had pleaded to only three of the charges including money laundering.
Evidence led so far, Chauke submitted, did not concern Nzama, and it was undesirable for her to sit through testimony unrelated to her case.
The State did not oppose the application.
The prosecution told the court the matter was at the stage of the shooting incidents, not the money-laundering charges, and that it was unlikely to reach evidence involving Nzama in the next fortnight.
The State highlighted one link, however. That a statement from the Department of Transport showed that Nzama had at one stage been the registered owner of a BMW 335 that was allegedly used in the Centurion shooting. The State said this information had already been disclosed to the defence and was not disputed.
Counsels for the remaining accused did not oppose the application either.
In its ruling, the court referred to section 159 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows a trial to continue without an accused in certain circumstances, including if the accused is disruptive, physically or mentally unable to attend, or if their continued presence would prejudice the proceedings.
Chauke agreed that his client’s circumstances did not squarely fall within those requirements, but asked the court to exercise its discretion.
The default position, it said, is that all proceedings must take place in the presence of the accused, and all five are charged under the doctrine of common purpose.
Having considered the application and the prejudice asserted, the court found that it did not meet the requirements of section 159.
The application was refused.
Under the doctrine of common purpose, each member of a group can be held criminally liable for crimes committed in pursuit of a shared objective, even if they did not personally commit every act.
The court said this is why the charges were framed as they were..
Most of the day’s proceedings focused on a trial-within-a-trial to determine whether the arrest of accused No. 1, Musa Kekana, was lawful.
The ruling was delivered during those proceedings.
Matlala and his co-accused, Kekana, Tiego Floyd Mabusela, Tsakani Matlala and Nzama face 25 charges, including 11 counts of attempted murder arising from three alleged shootings between August 2022 and January 2024. All five have pleaded not guilty.
