Johannesburg – The decision on the bail application of the five accused and former G4S employees alleged to have aided and abetted Thabo Bester’s escape from the Mangaung Correctional Centre in May 2022 has been postponed to Monday, May 29, 2023.
The magistrate presiding over the matter, Mohlolo Khabisi, ruled that the closing arguments would continue on Wednesday.
He is expected to make his final call on whether the arguments presented by the legal representatives representing the five applicants in the matter were strong enough to convince him to grant their bail requests.
Lawyers for the accused have in the past two weeks argued that it is not in the interest of justice for them to be kept in prison as the case has yet to be completed and would require at least a month or two to conclude.
Senohe Matsoara, Teboho Lipholo, Matanyane Buti Masukela, Tieho Frans Makhotsa, and Nastassja Jansen’s lawyers argued their cases during the closing arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday, saying that they should be released on bail for various reasons, including that they are not flight risks and will not interfere with witnesses.
Advocate Kagisho Moruri, who represents Motsoara and Makhosta in the application, was the first to address the court. He argued that the state prosecutor, Sello Mathloko, did not take into consideration some of the merits presented before the court through the statements and affidavits that were deposed by the accused ahead of the start of the bail application proceedings over three weeks ago.
“It is my instruction that the merits of this matter should not be determined by this court. Furthermore, the affidavits by the first and fourth applicants clearly reflect that at the time they drafted their statements, they were not in possession of the completed court docket; therefore, they did not know what case to meet. Secondly, for this court to make a determination, it must take into account the entire evidence,” he said.
The state argued that the accused are not the primary carers of their children, as some of the children did not stay with them. However, Moruri argued that his clients were primary carers by virtue of being providers to the children.
“When one in fact looks at the act, the act says both parents are placed on equal footing. The primary residence of a child in no way takes away the primary care-giving role,” he said.
In his last ditch effort, the lawyer for applicant five, Gary Botha, argued that his client is the primary care-giver of her children, even though she lives in a back room of her home with her mother, who is the grandparent of her children.
He added that his client had explained her situation regarding her need to take care of her children even without a job, adding that it was her intention to look for one in order to provide for them.
“Your worship, my submission is that her personal circumstances are before court. She has two children from two different men who pay for their maintenance. The children stay on the premises with the mother and father due to the fact that she was suspended from work,” Botha added.
The Star