Africa-Press – South-Africa. In a bid to persuade the Randburg Magistrate’s Court to release eight Presidential Protection Services officers on bail, their lawyers argued that the men were no longer in a “position of power” and could not intimidate State witnesses.
“Their position has been weakened despite being highly trained specialised officers. They are no longer in that powerful position as before. I submit they are in a powerless position; they are no longer those powerful VIP protection officers,” lawyer Fanie Kabini told the court on Thursday.
Kabini, who represents Phineas Molefo Boshielo, Churchill Mpakamaseni Mkhize, Lesibana Aggrie Rambau, and Moses Fhatuwani Tshidada, added that as part of their suspension, his clients had to hand in their firearms and appointment cards.
In addition, they were instructed not to interfere with the investigation, the court heard.
Kabini submitted that it was in the interests of justice to release his clients on bail with strict conditions.
“They still need to be employed and still need to oppose the charges against them at their disciplinary hearings. The charges against the accused are very weak,” he said.
This comes after the State argued that the release of Boshielo, Mkhize, Rambau, Tshidada, and their colleagues – Shadrack Molekatlane Kojoana, Johannes Matome Mampuru, Pomso Joseph Mofokeng, Harmans Madumetja Ramokhonami – on bail could pose a threat to State witnesses.
They face 12 charges, including pointing a firearm, reckless and negligent driving, malicious damage to property, assault with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, obstruction of justice, and assault by way of threat.
They were caught on video kicking four occupants of a blue Volkswagen Polo.
In closing arguments in the bail application on Thursday, State advocate Elize Le Roux argued that the eight men were part of a specialised unit and that they had access to resources, despite their suspensions.
“They don’t operate in isolation. It is always a difficult situation where witnesses are in fear of intimidation. It is one of the factors this court has to take into account.”
Le Roux added that the State had not yet contacted the motorist who sent the footage of the incident.
The footage was shared on social media on 3 July.
According to an affidavit by Hlanganiso Gladwin Ndlovu, a senior investigator at the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID), the witness received the following text message from an unknown number: “Good day Mr X; we (my emphasis) do not take kind to the footage that you supplied to the media (sic). You made a lot of enemies in specialised units. We will deal with you….. (again my emphasis).”
The State argued that it came from someone within the ranks of the VIP Protection Unit.
“[It was] either by one of the accused themselves or by someone close to them, with their knowledge and consent.
“No one else than the eight accused had a motive to send this message to this witness or an interest in the outcome of any investigation into their conduct,” Ndlovu said.
Le Roux also told the court that the State had been exploring other avenues to prove the credibility of the footage.
“The complainants will also come and testify and tell the court what happened to them — on-duty statements also placed the accused on duty on the day.
“We have the identifications of the accused in those vehicles on the day,” Le Roux said.
She told the court that Rambau was the driver of one of the vehicles.
Kojoana, who took the stand on Monday, had already placed Mampuru, Mofokeng, and Ramokhonami at the scene.
Le Roux said Boshielo, who logged the incident in the police’s occurrence book, also placed himself at the scene.
She said the State identified Mkhize, armed with a rifle, dragging one of the complainants across the road.
“There is direct evidence before this court that at least accused one to five were on the scene. There is overwhelming evidence against the accused that they were on the scene.
“But Kabini argued that it was not clear whether the complainants were on the ground due to an alleged assault or if they were “drunk”.
“My instruction is that the complainants were drunk,” he told the court.
Kojoana’s attorney, Mbhoni Mahlaule, argued that the person who contacted the State witness wanted to “jeopardise” the case.
“It can be anybody, even the complainants themselves, and they can benefit from the accused being denied bail.”
Mahlaule argued that releasing the accused would not disrupt public order or undermine the criminal justice system.
“As it stands, we don’t even have protesters outside court showing their dissatisfaction. The State has failed to prove its onus that the interests of justice did not permit the accused on bail.”
Xabiso Shotshonganye, who represents Mampuru, Mofokeng, and Ramokhonami, also disputed that his clients could be linked to the threatening message the State witness received.
“That allegation should be discarded because it is baseless. The state could not identify the sender of the message,” he said.
He argued that if his clients remained in custody, it would impact their disciplinary hearings.
Mampuru, he added, needs to visit a doctor for checkups following the car accident.
He submitted that the court should also disregard the State’s submission that motorists often feel intimidated in the presence of the VIP Protection Unit because of their aggressive attitude towards their fellow road users.
“Does that mean the accused before court should be punished because they are from the VIP unit? The answer is no.”
Magistrate Hlengiwe Mkhabisi will deliver judgment on Tuesday.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
