Johannesburg – Serious allegations against the judiciary were made by Witness A at the Madlanga commission of R2.5 million paid by Katiso “KT” Molefe to get bail.
On Tuesday, Witness A, a police investigator, told the Madlanga Commission that Molefe’s bail approval was not the result of legal argument but rather the exchange of millions behind closed doors.
According to the witness, they had already been tipped off before the ruling.
“Sources told us Katiso Molefe would get bail and that R2.5 million was going to make it happen,” he said.
Molefe, who stands accused in the brutal killing of Vereeniging engineer Armand Swart in April last year, has also been linked to the high-profile murders of Oupa “DJ Sumbody” Sefoka and businessman Hector “DJ Vintos” Buthelezi.
Two weeks ago, the Johannesburg High Court granted him R400,000 bail — a ruling that shocked investigators. This was in relation his recent arrest. Initially denied bail by the Alexandra Magistrates Court, Molefe’s legal team successfully appealed the decision.
Judge Brad Wanless overturned the original refusal, stating that the State had not substantiated its reasons to keep Molefe in custody. But Witness A painted a different picture of what led to that outcome.
He alleged the judiciary ignored critical facts: Molefe’s previous conviction in the United Kingdom (UK), a factor his lawyers failed to disclose and the use of a fraudulent passport that listed different names and birth dates.
Witness A insisted that this was not some technical oversight.
“He was arrested in the UK in possession of dagga and a firearm. These are red flags. And yet, the judge appeared more receptive to the defence than to the prosecution,” the witness said.
Prosecutors had argued that Molefe posed a flight risk, especially given his prior use of false identity documents. But those arguments, the detective said, were dismissed with little consideration.
Witness A told the commission that no matter how long ago he used fake documents, that alone should be left behind given the charges he is currently facing.
Meanwhile, Witness B is currently testifying before the commission and most of her testimony is clarifying and giving more detail on what Witness A told the house.
Discussion about this post