Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala Challenges Magistrate Over ‘Wrong Legal Standard’ in Bail Denial
Businessman Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala has taken his fight for freedom to the Johannesburg High Court, accusing the magistrate who presided over his bail application of using the wrong legal standard to deny him release.
Matlala, who is currently held at Kgosi Mampuru prison, was arrested for allegedly masterminding the attempted assassination of his former girlfriend, television actress Tebogo Thobejane, among other charges. He has now filed a notice of appeal challenging what he describes as a “fundamental misdirection” by Alexandra Magistrate Syta Prinsloo.
At the heart of the appeal is Magistrate Prinsloo’s decision to treat Matlala’s bail hearing as a schedule 6 matter under the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), which applies to serious offences such as premeditated murder. Matlala argues that both the prosecution and defence had agreed during the proceedings that his case fell under schedule 5, a less stringent classification.
“The learned regional court magistrate erroneously found that the appellant’s bail application fell within the ambit of schedule 6 of the CPA,” reads the notice of appeal. “This finding was made despite it being agreed between the parties that the application fell within the ambit of schedule 5.”
According to Matlala, Prinsloo’s decision effectively raised the bar for his bail, forcing him to prove the existence of “exceptional circumstances” justifying his release — a burden not required under schedule 5. He said this error severely prejudiced him and deprived him of a fair opportunity to present evidence that met the higher standard.
The appeal argues that Prinsloo’s decision to invoke schedule 6 only became apparent at the judgment stage, leaving both parties blindsided.
“Most significantly, this finding was only made at the judgment stage, which resulted in a failure to forewarn the parties timeously of this onus and the opportunity to adduce further evidence in compliance with schedule 6 of the CPA,” the document states.
Under South African law, the distinction between schedule 5 and schedule 6 is critical in bail proceedings. Schedule 5 offences require the accused to demonstrate that their release would be in the interests of justice, while schedule 6 matters — reserved for the most serious crimes — require proof of exceptional circumstances that justify release.
Matlala contends that while he faces charges of attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder, these do not automatically qualify as schedule 6 offences unless there is clear evidence of premeditation. During his bail hearing, he said, both the State and his defence team had agreed that the case should be dealt with under schedule 5.
However, Magistrate Prinsloo took a different view, ruling that the crimes demonstrated a “high degree of planning and orchestration.” In her judgment, she noted:
“The applicant is charged with offences that demonstrate a high degree of planning and orchestration, including the alleged ordering of hits on multiple individuals. These factors elevate the matter to a schedule 6 offence.”
Matlala vehemently disputes this interpretation, accusing Prinsloo of reclassifying the charges without proper notice or justification. He argues that her ruling went beyond the evidence presented and amounted to a misapplication of the law.
“The court a quo evidently and from the onset applied the incorrect test and yardstick to the evidence adduced,” the appeal asserts.
He maintains that the magistrate’s decision imposed an unfair burden on the defence and tilted the outcome against him from the start.
“The court a quo erroneously found that the appellant was burdened with the onus to prove the existence of exceptional circumstances,” Matlala stated.
He added that Prinsloo further compounded the error by concluding that he had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, even though the higher standard should not have applied in the first place.
“Even though the learned magistrate found that the appellant’s application fell within the ambit of schedule 6 of the CPA, she subsequently erroneously found that the evidence had not established the existence of exceptional circumstances,” he argued.
Matlala’s legal team believes the court’s approach undermined the fairness of the proceedings and effectively denied him the opportunity to present a complete case for his release. The appeal describes the magistrate’s ruling as a “misdirection in law” that warrants intervention by the High Court.
The case has drawn significant public attention given Matlala’s alleged involvement in the attempted assassination plot targeting Thobejane — a well-known actress and influencer. Details of the alleged plot emerged earlier this year, linking Matlala to a network accused of planning coordinated attacks on multiple individuals.
If successful, the appeal could set a new precedent in how courts classify complex conspiracy and attempted murder cases for bail purposes. For now, Matlala remains behind bars at Kgosi Mampuru as he awaits a hearing date for his appeal
Follow Us on Twitter
