• Attempted murder-accused Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala’s advocate has revealed plans to approach the head of court for an urgent trial date and apply for his case to be separated from his co-accused’s.
• In the meantime, the trial has now been set down for 20 July.
• Matlala and his four co-accused face multiple charges, including attempted murder, in connection with a series of botched hits.

Vusimusi “Cat” Matlala wants his attempted murder trial separated from that of his current co-accused and heard urgently.

A central figure at the Madlanga Commission, Matlala and his four co-accused – his wife, Tsakane Matlala, alleged hitmen Tiego Floyd Mabusela and Musa Kekana, and Kekana’s daughter, Nthabiseng Nzama – returned to the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on Wednesday.

The group faces a range of charges – from attempted murder and money laundering to defeating the administration of justice.

This is in connection with three separate attempts on the lives of Matlala’s ex, Tebogo Thobejane, taxi boss Joe Sibanyoni, and Seunkie “DJ Vettys” Mokubung.

On Wednesday, Matlala’s counsel, advocate Annelene van den Heever, announced that they intended to approach the head of court to request an urgent trial date and then to bring an application for a separation of trial.

READ | Nkosi says Sibiya lied repeatedly, didn’t refuse Matlala’s impalas as top cop told Madlanga

She cited Matlala’s continued detention – with the alleged criminal kingpin having been denied bail – and security concerns regarding the defence as the reasons.

The case was last in court in February, when it was postponed for the outcome of representations from Nzama and Tsakane Matlala to the prosecuting authorities to have the charges against them dropped, and for a pretrial conference to be held.

When it came before the court on Wednesday, though, the State requested a postponement.

The court heard that no representations had been received from Tsakane and that, following amendments to the representations from Nzama, the outcome was still outstanding and would likely take about two more weeks.

Acting Judge William Karam was visibly unimpressed.

“Obviously, the court is not happy with what has transpired,” he said, adding he previously indicated that he wanted the pretrial wrapped up before the end of the court term, which is next week.

And ultimately, Karam refused the State’s request, instead deciding to forge ahead with the pretrial for everyone but Nzama – with hers now postponed until next Wednesday and the court having ordered the National Prosecuting Authority to decide her representations in the meantime.

In addition to Nzama’s representations, the court also heard on Wednesday from Van den Heever that requests made on behalf of Matlala for the State to disclose certain documents had apparently not been addressed.

She charged:

Van den Heever added that earlier that morning, they had also been advised that the State wanted to ask that Matlala be sent back to the eBongweni Super Maximum Correctional Centre. He was moved from Kgosi Mampuru in Pretoria to eBongweni in southern KwaZulu-Natal in December, but has been back at the former for the last few months.

“I can’t help but get the impression that this is now punishment for us wanting to exercise our constitutional rights by asking for documents,” Van den Heever said.

The State later countered that a previous court order allowing Matlala to remain at Kgosi Mampuru to consult had since lapsed. But according to Van den Heever, the Department of Correctional Services had now decided not to move him again in any case.

She maintained that the documents they wanted were “simple” and “basic” and that she had expected to find them in the docket.

“I intend to most probably invoke my client’s right in terms of [Section] 342A [of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows the court to step in in the event of an unreasonable delay] and do it substantively at this point in time,” Van den Heever stated, saying the longer the case dragged on, the longer the “black cloud” of allegations against Matlala hung over him.

“You have a right to defend yourself,” she said on Wednesday, insistent that they wanted their day in court.

After a short adjournment, however, the court resumed and heard that Van den Heever had new instructions and was now prepared to abandon any challenge, for instance, to the State’s ballistic expert.

She said her client’s position was that he was only implicated in three statements made by two witnesses and that “all the State needs to do is call these two witnesses”.

READ | Cat Matlala back at Kgosi Mampuru... for now

Van den Heever added: “My instructions are that my attorney wishes, together with the State, to approach either the JP [Judge President] or DJP [Deputy Judge President] in this division and inquire about the allocation of an urgent trial date. We will ask for a separation of trials. We do not believe it’s in the interests of my client to further be detained because the issues relating to my client are so limited that this matter can be concluded in literally a question of two or three days.”

She said there were also “serious security reasons in this matter”.

Van den Heever did not elaborate but stated there had been “threats” involving the legal team and that they believed it was “in the interests of justice – and the defence’s safety in this matter – that it be dealt with as quickly as possible”.

She indicated that they could, potentially, also move to separate Tsakane’s case and have it heard together with Matlala’s.

The State indicated it would oppose such an application.

Karam, however, seemed to agree it was a good idea, saying the court was “obviously amenable in having justice expedited by your suggestion” and encouraged Van den Heever to pursue it.

In the interim, the pretrial proceedings were concluded on Wednesday, and the trial was set down for 20 July.

The court heard from the State that it was expecting challenges to the admissibility of certain of its evidence, specifically “admissions to a private person”.

And Van den Heever confirmed there would be a trial-within-a-trial centred on the electronic devices which were seized as well as “challenges pertaining to any statement made by [Matlala] after his arrest”.

The trial was expected to last 25 days and to involve audio and video evidence “with regard to crime scenes”.

Arguments on a possible application to compel the State to disclose the documents Matlala wants – should their request be refused – were also on Wednesday provisionally set down for 7 and 8 May.