By Johnathan Paoli
The Pretoria High Court has overturned the bail condition that barred South African Police Service (SAPS) Crime Intelligence head Dumisani Khumalo and two other senior officers from entering any Crime Intelligence premises while awaiting trial.
The ruling immediately removes a restriction that the court found was unsupported by evidence and imposed without explanation.
Khumalo and senior officers Precious Madondo and Maperemisa Lekalakala, were among seven people charged in the Pretoria Magistrates’ Court with corruption and fraud earlier this year.
The charges fall under Schedule 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, meaning the accused had to show that their release on bail would be in the interests of justice.
Despite this threshold, the State informed the magistrate that it was not opposing bail, stating that all investigations were complete, the accused were not flight risks, and their addresses and employment details had been verified.
However, acting chief magistrate Vusumuzi Mahlangu imposed a sweeping condition prohibiting the accused from entering any Crime Intelligence premises anywhere in the country.
Their legal representatives immediately appealed the decision, arguing that the magistrate had effectively suspended them from their employment without due process and without any basis in the record.
The High Court criticised the magistrate’s failure to provide reasons for imposing the condition.
Because the restriction had not been requested by the State or motivated through evidence, all parties, including the appeal judge, were left guessing as to what concern the magistrate had attempted to address.
The High Court noted that while courts are empowered to impose bail conditions in the interest of justice, they must do so on the basis of information properly placed before them.
Judicial officers are expected to provide reasons for their decisions, especially when imposing conditions that neither party has sought and that carry significant consequences for an accused person’s employment and reputation.
The High Court found that nothing in the bail proceedings suggested that the three officers had threatened the safety of witnesses or the integrity of the investigation.
Although the prosecutor confirmed that many witnesses were SAPS members based in Crime Intelligence, no allegation was made that these witnesses were at risk.
The State told the magistrate that investigations were complete and that it had not sought any special protections or limitations on the officers’ access to their workplace.
Against this backdrop, the magistrate’s sudden introduction of a blanket restriction was deemed unnecessary, disproportionate, and legally unsustainable.
The High Court found that the magistrate’s condition created confusion and uncertainty.
The wording appeared so broad that it could prevent the officers from entering any police station that housed a Crime Intelligence component, yet the magistrate simultaneously instructed them to liaise with the investigating officer to collect their personal items from their offices.
INSIDE POLITICS