The bail judgment for two men accused of masterminding the murder of boxer Zolani Tete has been postponed after the State introduced a new ballistics report in the Mdantsane Magistrate’s Court.
The report allegedly links two other accused men, described by the State as alleged hitmen, to the shooting that claimed Tete’s life in Mdantsane on 21 August. The late introduction of the report prompted objections from the defence, which accused the State of trying to undermine the applicants’ right to liberty and strengthen a case that was not yet ready for trial.
Magistrate Anton Pretorius postponed the judgment to Friday after meeting the legal teams and State prosecutor Thango Pangalele to discuss how the new evidence should be handled.
The applicants, alleged mastermind Uzuzole Goqwana and co-accused Sinebhongo Qase, are applying for bail. The State is opposing their release and argues that they are a danger to society.
Two other accused men, Siphesihle Kolisa and Athandwa Gangala, are alleged to have been recruited to carry out the killing. They have abandoned their bail applications and are expected to return to court on 13 October.
The case has not yet gone to trial. The allegations against all the accused remain unproven, and they are presumed innocent unless a court finds them guilty.
New Evidence Before Bail Judgment
The bail proceedings had reached the stage where both the State and defence had filed their heads of argument. Pretorius had reserved judgment for Monday, but the planned ruling was delayed after the ballistics report from lead investigator Warrant Officer Nkululeko Mtati was brought to the State’s attention.
Pretorius told the court that he contacted Pangalele and directed that the report be placed before the court. He then met with the State and defence representatives to discuss how the report and the evidence arising from it should be addressed.
“[Last] Friday, a meeting was held in my chambers, attended by me, Mr Pangalele, Mr Kampi and Mr Pakade. During that meeting, I requested that the parties indicate how they intended to deal with the report, [concerning] the evidence arising from it.
“Both parties subsequently indicated that they intended to file further heads of argument (on Monday). It was accordingly agreed that judgment would not be delivered (on Monday) and that the court would first consider the further submissions before delivering judgment,” said Pretorius.
The magistrate said the meeting was intended to ensure transparency about the new evidence the State wanted to introduce. The report was not simply ignored, because it could potentially affect the arguments presented during the bail hearing.
The ballistics report allegedly links Kolisa and Gangala to the shooting. It is not clear from the supplied information what specific findings the report contains or how the evidence may affect the allegations against Goqwana and Qase, who are accused of recruiting the alleged hitmen.
The court will need to consider whether the report can properly be taken into account at the bail stage and what weight, if any, should be given to it before the matter proceeds to trial.
Defence Objects To Report
The defence attorneys objected to the introduction of the ballistics report after the State had closed its case in the bail proceedings.
Ayabonga Kampi, who represents Goqwana, accused Pretorius of having met Pangalele before the Friday meeting. The magistrate denied that the two had held a prior meeting, but Kampi argued that such communication did not necessarily have to be face-to-face.
Kampi said the meeting “did not have to be physical”.
“It can happen over the phone,” Kampi said.
He described the “sudden introduction” of the ballistics report as a deliberate attempt by the State to infringe his client’s right to liberty.
Kampi’s objection centres on the timing of the report. The defence argues that the evidence was introduced after the State had closed its case and after the parties had prepared their arguments for judgment.
Asanda Pakade, who represents Qase, also criticised the State’s approach. He said the decision to introduce the report at that stage showed that the prosecution’s case was weak and that the evidence had been brought in to prevent Qase from obtaining bail.
Pakade described the report as having been “sneaked and smuggled” into the proceedings.
“We are not on trial yet, but because the State wants to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, it has chosen this path. This is because its case is weak,” Pakade said.
The defence may argue that the applicants should not be kept in custody because evidence intended to strengthen the State’s case was introduced too late. They may also challenge whether the report is relevant to the bail decision and whether they have had enough time to respond to it.
State Defends Ballistics Report
Pangalele denied that he had met Pretorius before the Friday meeting and rejected the suggestion that there had been an undisclosed discussion about the case.
“It’s a blue lie to say there was a meeting between me and you, Your Worship,” Pangalele said.
He argued that the ballistics report was in the State’s favour and would strengthen its case even further.
The prosecution’s position is that the report is relevant to the allegations against the accused and should be considered before the magistrate decides whether Goqwana and Qase should be released on bail.
The report allegedly connects Kolisa and Gangala to the firearm evidence or shooting. If accepted at the bail stage, it could support the State’s argument that the investigation has produced evidence linking the alleged hitmen to Tete’s death.
However, evidence considered during bail proceedings is not the same as a final finding of guilt. The State will still need to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial if the matter proceeds.
The accused men may challenge the ballistics evidence later, including the way the evidence was collected, handled and analysed. Questions about the firearm, the ballistic testing and the chain of custody could become important in the trial.
Accused Men Face Serious Allegations
Goqwana and Qase are alleged to have recruited Kolisa and Gangala to kill Tete. The State is opposing bail and argues that the applicants pose a danger to society.
The bail hearing will require the court to consider whether the accused should remain in custody while the investigation and prosecution continue. The court may also consider the seriousness of the charges, the strength of the State’s case, the possibility of interference with witnesses and the risk that the accused could flee.
The new ballistics report may affect how the court assesses the strength of the State’s case. That is why both sides were allowed to make further submissions before judgment is delivered.
Kolisa and Gangala have abandoned their bail applications and will return to court on 13 October. Their decision means that the immediate bail dispute now concerns Goqwana and Qase.
The postponement does not mean that the magistrate has accepted the State’s version or rejected the defence objections. It means the court wants to consider the additional report and the legal arguments before reaching a decision.
Pretorius postponed the matter to Friday for judgment after meeting the legal representatives and allowing further heads of argument to be filed.
Court To Consider Further Arguments
The next stage will be closely watched because the judgment could determine whether Goqwana and Qase remain in custody or are released under conditions while the case continues.
The court will also have to consider the fairness of introducing the ballistics report at the end of the bail proceedings. The defence says the timing harmed the applicants’ rights, while the State says the report is important evidence that strengthens the case.
The magistrate has attempted to deal with the dispute openly by explaining the meeting with the legal teams and the reason for the postponement. His comments indicated that he wanted both sides to address the report before the court delivered judgment.
For Tete’s family and supporters, the bail proceedings are another step in a case involving the death of a prominent boxer. The alleged killing has led to a serious investigation and the arrest of several men, but the court must still determine whether the accused should remain in custody before trial.
The ballistics report could become an important part of the State’s case, but its final value will depend on the evidence presented and tested in court. The defence has already signalled that it will challenge the way the report was introduced and what it means for the applicants’ right to bail.
Until Friday’s judgment, Goqwana and Qase remain in custody and the decision on their release has not been made. Kolisa and Gangala will return to court in October after abandoning their bail applications.
The case now turns on whether the court accepts the State’s request to consider the new evidence and whether the alleged links between the accused men and the shooting are strong enough to justify continued detention.
