NPA to appeal bail ruling in case of 12 SANDF soldiers accused of killing Hawks investigator
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is set to appeal a bail judgment that resulted in the release of 12 South African National Defence Force (SANDF) members linked to the murder of senior Hawks investigator Frans Mathipa.
The 12 SANDF special forces soldiers were each granted R10 000 bail by the Randburg Magistrate's Court on Friday.
The identities of the accused remain undisclosed as per a court order.
SANDF soldiers implicated in murder
The arrests were made last month following Mathipa's death in August 2023.
He was fatally shot while driving on the N1 highway near the Hammanskraal offramp.
At the time of his death, Mathipa had been investigating the abduction of two Ethiopian men – alleged Isis associate Abdella Hussein Abadiga abd his bodyguard, Kadir Jemal Abotese.
ALSO READ: Reserve Force members allegedly defraud cash-strapped SANDF of R1.1 million
The two men were kidnapped from the Mall of Africa in Midrand in December 2022.
The accused face multiple charges, including kidnapping, murder, fraud, obstructing the administration of justice, making a false statement under oath and theft of a motor vehicle.
Bail granted for SANDF soldiers
On Friday, NPA Gauteng regional spokesperson Phindi Mjonondwane expressed the prosecution's disappointment with the outcome of the bail hearing.
'The court deemed them as suitable candidates to be released on bail and, therefore, fixed bail in the amount of R10 000,' she told SABC News.
She indicated that the matter will be back in court next week as the state seeks to appeal the bail ruling.
Mjonondwane argued that the state had presented a compelling case to justify opposing bail.
'We are of the view that we have presented a very comprehensive affidavit in court stating how all the accused are linked,' she said.
'Nonetheless, we are not yet at the trial stage where as the state we have to prove our case beyond reasonable doubt.
'The proceedings before court were on a balance of probabilities and as such the NPA will henceforth study this judgement.'
READ MORE: 'We're bleeding but not finished': Motshekga defends struggling air force
She also disputed the defence's claim that the Ethiopian nationals had likely disappeared voluntarily since Abadiga and Abotese have not been found.
'Part of the information that we submitted as the NPA was to dismiss their allegations about the person that we are saying they allegedly killed, about him changing from one place to another and also changing identity.
'We have dismissed that because there was no supporting evidence to support what they were alleging.'
Mjonondwane maintained that the accused were linked to the crimes and that the state would rely on legal precedent and supporting evidence to prove its case..
'We'll use case law as well as corroborating evidence to substantiate our allegations with regards to the two that they allegedly kidnapped at Mall of Africa, whose whereabouts we don't know as the state and we can only come to the conclusion that they were killed.'
NPA and SANDF clash over key documents
During the bail proceedings, the court reportedly learned that the SANDF had resisted handing over key documents to Mathipa during his investigation.
This information is still outstanding, and the magistrate reportedly criticised the military for a lack of cooperation.
Mjonondwane confirmed that the NPA has attempted to engage the SANDF to obtain the documents.
'There are families that are waiting to see justice happen and for that to happen is when the SANDF is working in cooperation with the NPA as well as the investigating team.
'We need their cooperation. Efforts are still continuing to try and get the necessary cooperation and the necessary information for the investigating officer to conclude his investigation.'
She added that the NPA was using a subpoena under section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act to compel the SANDF to provide the necessary documents, rather than immediately seeking relief through the courts.
'The subpoena itself was a way of forcing the hand of the South African National Defence Force because as the NPA we have mechanisms available to get the necessary information wherein an investigation is ongoing and certain information is needed.
'The law provides us with such sections to utilise in order to get all the information that we require to ensure that justice is indeed served in this matter.'
The case will be back in court on 17 July.
NOW READ: Two SANDF soldiers stabbed to death during altercation at Mpumalanga base
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Fresh murder charge for Gqeberha gun dealer as State adds to explosive case
As she prepares for another bail hearing, Karen Webb, the firearms dealer at the centre of a growing arms scandal, now faces a second murder charge — this time linked to the 2024 killing of a man in Gqeberha, allegedly involving a firearm missing from her former premises. Just as it seemed things were looking up for a Gqeberha firearms dealer facing a laundry list of criminal charges, the State brought more cases against her when she returned to the city's magistrates' court on Monday, including another murder charge. As Karen Webb is set to bring a new bail application before the Gqeberha Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, investigating officers came to court on Monday with two new dockets to add to her ever-expanding list of charges. The 41-year-old owner of the now defunct Webb's Arms has been in custody since her arrest over a string of firearms-related charges in February 2024. Among the charges against her are theft, fraud, firearm smuggling, providing firearms to persons not licensed to possess them, and murder. The saga began in 2019, when Webb provided storage for another firearms dealer, Chris Evans, after his business, Aquila Arms, collapsed. Evans' stock was kept on the Webb's Arms premises, but in a separate safe from Webb's stock. In 2023, firearms recovered from crime scenes in Nelson Mandela Bay, the Western Cape and Gauteng were linked to Evans' cache — and, crucially, to weapons stored at Webb's premises. Evans later accused Webb of stealing weapons from his safe and selling them illegally. She was later accused of illegally moving her dealer stock when her business closed, to premises in the Western Cape without notifying the police. A charge of murder was also brought against her after a .38-special Smith & Wesson revolver, alleged to be from Evans' missing stock, was linked to the October 2022 death of Andrew Lamont in Kariega. Webb has been in custody at North End prison since February 2024. Her initial bid for bail was dismissed, but succeeded on appeal in the Makhanda High Court in June. She was granted bail of R10,000. However, she remained behind bars as more charges had been brought against her before the appeal. When she returned to court on Monday, the State brought another murder charge against her. While details of the case were not discussed in open court, it is believed that the charges related to the death of a man in Gqeberha in December 2024. The murder weapon was another of Evans's firearms that went missing from Webb's premises. This charge will be added to Webb's ongoing case and will form part of the pending bail proceedings. Another charge of theft was brought against her by her ex-husband, Arthur Webb, accusing her of selling household goods belonging to him, including furniture, after their divorce several years ago. It is unclear at this stage whether this charge will be added to the other charges before the court. The case has caused alarm across the country. Hundreds of firearms once held in storage at Webb's Arms have reportedly ended up at crime scenes. Police say many of the weapons were used in robberies and gang-related shootings, and 400 firearms are still unaccounted for. DM
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
NPA seeks clarity on Omotoso acquittal, defence objects to ‘fishing expedition'
As the State moves to appeal the acquittal of controversial pastor Timothy Omotoso, his legal team has accused the National Prosecuting Authority of abusing court processes by seeking clarification that they argue is aimed at retrospectively revising the judgment. As the State prepares to appeal the acquittal of Nigerian televangelist Timothy Omotoso, his defence counsel has branded their first step as a 'fishing expedition' and an attempt to have the judgment amended in favour of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). The NPA brought an application before the Gqeberha Division of the High Court for Judge Irma Schoeman to provide 'clarification' of the judgment that saw Omotoso acquitted on multiple charges of sexual assault and human trafficking. The application, brought before court on Monday, 14 July 2025, did not single out specific aspects of the judgment, but rather sought clarity on the factual findings of Judge Schoeman's entire judgment. This flies in the face of normal procedure as the prosecution has yet to provide its 'legal question' — the specific aspects of the judgment it does not agree with and believes another court might make a different ruling on. Senior State prosecutor Apla Bodlani SC indicated to the court that the State already had a strong basis for its appeal, but sought a better explanation from Judge Schoeman to 'satisfy [themselves] that [their] approach would be sustainable'. Omotoso and his co-accused, Lusanda Sulani and Zukiswa Sitho, were not in court as their presence was not required for these proceedings. South African immigration authorities served the controversial pastor with a five-year ban from the country as he was flying out of OR Tambo International Airport in May. Omotoso's legal counsel Peter Daubermann called the State's application a 'retrospective fishing expedition' and an abuse of court processes in an attempt for the judge to revise her ruling. He said there was no legal mechanism that allowed for this course of action and accused the State of trying to 'reverse engineer a factual foundation' that would provide it with reasons to appeal. Omotoso, Sulani and Sitho were the subjects of an eight-year trial in which they were accused of multiple counts of sexual assault and human trafficking by members of Omotoso's Jesus Dominion International church. The trial was marred by controversy around the NPA's conduct, and in April Judge Schoeman acquitted them on all the charges. Judge Schoeman in her ruling cited flaws in the prosecution's case, including almost no cross-examination challenging the versions of the accused as well as a lack of corroborating evidence led by the State. Following his acquittal Omotoso embarked on a 'New Dawn crusade' in East London. But on the second last day of the April crusade he was arrested on immigration charges at a church where he was meant to preach. He was then declared a prohibited person. That status, however, stemmed not from the criminal proceedings, but from allegations that he had used fraudulent documentation to enter South Africa. During court proceedings on Monday, Daubermann further argued that Judge Schoeman was ' functus officio ', meaning she had completed her duties with regard to this matter. He said her judgment was final and she 'was not unclear or ambiguous'. 'If this application is entertained it will set a precedent, and an accused will never know if a judgment is final or not,' Daubermann said. Bodlani maintained that the intention of the application was not for Judge Schoeman to alter or supplement her judgment. He reiterated that after studying the judgment, the State was still unclear on what the factual findings were, and for it to better prepare their appeal, it required Judge Schoeman to provide clarity on her findings. The judge said she would need time to consider the opposing arguments, and that the judgment would be delivered on 22 July 2025. DM
The Citizen
6 hours ago
- The Citizen
‘Fishing expedition': NPA criticised for trying to reopen Omotoso rape trial
The defence accused the state of attempting to 'reverse engineer a factual finding in the hope that it might later justify an appeal'. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) believes that clarification from the courts regarding the acquittal of rape-accused Nigerian televangelist Timothy Omotoso could strengthen its case before the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). However, the defence rejected the move, accusing the state of trying to get the court to reconsider its decision. The Eastern Cape High Court in Gqeberha on Monday began hearing the first phase of the state's application for leave to appeal. The application follows Judge Irna Schoeman's April ruling, in which she acquitted Omotoso and his co-accused, Lusani Sulani and Zukiswa Sitho, on a range of charges following an eight-year trial. The court found that the state had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and also criticised the poor quality of the prosecution. Although the NPA is appealing the judgment, Omotoso has since left South Africa, having been declared a prohibited person by the Department of Home Affairs. NPA seeks clarification on Omotoso acquittal During proceedings, the state requested that Schoeman clarify the factual findings based on the evidence presented during the trial. Alpa Bodlani, representing the NPA, stressed that the state was not asking the judge to revise or revisit her ruling. 'We want the clarification so that we may ask the court to reserve questions of law. But that's something that we intend to do once we have received the clarification,' he said. The lawyer emphasised that the 2 April judgment stands. ALSO READ: Batohi explains why NPA did not investigate prosecutors in 2021 Omotoso trial Referring to precedent from another judgment, Bodlani explained that the SCA had outlined three requirements that must be met before a question of law can be reserved under the Criminal Procedure Act including the legal issue must be stated clearly, the underlying facts must be well-established, and the record must reflect both the facts and the legal question. 'Unless the state does this, the court continues. It may not be possible for an appeal court to establish certainty about what the conclusions made by the trial court and the legal court were. 'So when it is unclear from the judgment of the trial court what its findings of fact are, it is necessary for the state to request it to clarify its findings. If this is not done, the point of law is not properly reserved,' he explained. Bodlani stressed that the state did not know what the factual findings are. 'We don't see those conclusions of that in the judgment.' Gqeberha High Court: NPA Omotoso Appeal — NPASouthAfrica (@NPA_Prosecutes) July 14, 2025 Defence strongly opposes NPA's request In response, Omotoso's lawyer, Peter Daubermann, argued that Schoeman's ruling was final. 'You discharged your function and cannot now supplement, elaborate or revisit your factual findings,' he said. Daubermann contended there was no legal mechanism for the NPA's request. 'The Criminal Procedure Act contains no provision expressed or implied allowing the state to request clarification of factual findings after an acquittal. READ MORE: Omotoso acquittal points to NPA dysfunction, activists say 'The only possible mechanism would be Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which the state has not invoked. 'There is no application to reserve a question of law and only today, as the state stated, an intention to do so.' The lawyer accused the state of attempting to 'reverse engineer a factual finding in the hope that it might later justify an appeal'. He maintained that the request for clarification is 'procedurally impermissible', adding that the judgment is not ambiguous. 'It is long, reasoned and careful.' State accused of trying to reopen Omotoso rape trial Daubermann further criticised the request, describing it as a 'retrospective fishing expedition'. 'It amounts to an impermissible attempt to reopen the trial, re-litigate the facts, and circumvent the acquittal under the guise of seeking clarity.' He also argued that the state had missed the deadline to file an appeal. 'In terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, such an application had to be brought within a reasonable time. A reasonable time in the circumstances would be 21 days. It is now more than 90 days after judgment was delivered in this case.' Moreover, Daubermann warned that granting the state's request would undermine legal certainty. 'If this type of application were entertained, it would mean that an accused person would never know whether the judgment is final, because any court, any judge or magistrate would be entitled to amplify the judgment. There would be no finality.' Schoeman will deliver her verdict next Tuesday. NOW READ: Batohi not worried about Omotoso's deportation as NPA plans to bring Gupta brothers back to SA
