Court dismisses Nzama's bid to skip parts of Matlala trial
The Johannesburg High Court has dismissed an application by accused number five, Nthabiseng Nzama, to be excused from attending portions of the attempted murder trial involving alleged underworld figure Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala and his co-accused.
Nzama had approached the court seeking permission to be absent during testimony that does not directly relate to the charges she faces. Through her lawyer, Advocate Timothy Chauke, she argued that her continued presence in court was placing strain on her academic commitments.
In an affidavit read into the record, Nzama told the court, "The lengthy duration of this trial, together with the daily travel between Pretoria and Johannesburg, consumes the greater part of each weekday, leaving little or no meaningful opportunity to devote to my academic responsibilities."
She further argued that being required to sit through evidence unrelated to her case was unnecessary and did not advance the interests of justice.
However, in a detailed ruling, Judge Cassim Moosa found that the application did not meet the legal threshold required under Section 159 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which governs when an accused may be absent from court proceedings.
"It is clear on any interpretation of the contents of the affidavit that the application simply does not meet the necessary threshold as envisaged by the provisions of Section 159 of the Criminal Procedure Act."
Moosa acknowledged that Nzama’s studies may be affected but stressed that the right to a fair trial requires an accused person to be present in court. He warned that her absence could prejudice her defence.
"It is the view of this court that at all material times the two legal representatives act directly upon the instructions that they should and must receive from accused number five, if accused number five is not here there could be a reasonable possibility that something could miss their attention and ultimately the right to a fair trial."
Moosa also questioned why the issue had not been raised earlier during pre-trial proceedings, noting that such applications should ideally be addressed before the trial begins.
The State, represented by Advocate Elize le Roux, did not oppose the application, and neither did the legal teams of the co-accused. However, the court emphasized that it is not bound by agreement between parties and must independently assess whether legal requirements are met.
Despite the lack of opposition, Moosa said the court had to carefully balance Nzama’s personal circumstances against the broader interests of justice.
In a broader reflection during his ruling, the judge remarked: "Both the parties know the truth, it is the judge who is on trial."
The court ultimately refused the application, ordering that Nzama must remain in attendance for the duration of the proceedings.
ALSO READ
