By Thapelo Molefe
The first State witness in the attempted murder trial of alleged underworld figure Vusumuzi “Cat” Matlala and his co-accused has told the Johannesburg High Court that police showed him video footage of the shooting before taking his formal statement, as the defence continued to challenge key aspects of his evidence.
Former Bidvest security guard Bethwell Mzamo Cele made the admission during cross-examination by Advocate Annelene van den Heever, who represents Matlala and his wife, Tsakani Matlala, on Thursday.
Matlala, his wife Tsakani Matlala, Floyd Mabusela, Musa Kekana and Nthabiseng Nzama have pleaded not guilty to 25 charges, including attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, unlawful possession of prohibited firearms and ammunition, fraud and money laundering.
The charges relate to three alleged failed assassination attempts targeting Mpumalanga taxi boss Joe Sibanyoni, media personality Tebogo Thobejane and music producer Seunkie “DJ Vettys” Mokubung between August 2022 and January 2024.
The State alleges that two firearms linked to the attacks on Sibanyoni and DJ Vettys were later recovered and that forensic and ballistic evidence will form part of its case.
Cele previously testified that he exchanged gunfire with alleged hitmen armed with AK-47 rifles during the attempted murder of Sibanyoni outside Centurion Golf Estate on 10 August 2022.
He said he returned fire with his Bidvest-issued 9mm pistol after the attackers opened fire and maintained that he acted in self-defence.
During Thursday’s proceedings, Van den Heever questioned Cele extensively about the statement he made to police after the shooting.
Cele initially denied being shown footage of the incident, but later confirmed that a police officer had played the video while questioning him about where he had been positioned during the shooting.
“Were you shown video footage of the shooting incident, yes or no?” Van den Heever asked.
“Yes,” Cele replied.
He said the footage was shown to him by “the police officer that was analysing and wanted to see where I was during the shootout”.
Cele told the court the officer later took his statement and that the footage had been shown to him before the statement was typed and signed on 24 June 2025.
Van den Heever suggested that watching the footage and discussing it with police could have influenced the contents of his statement.
“According to you, you’ve now [been] shown this video, you’re having a discussion with these police officers, you and them analysed the video, and then after that this statement is now typed up, correct?” she asked.
Cele agreed.
He said two police officers were seated with him while a third moved in and out of the room. He could not remember their names or whether the officer who commissioned the statement had been present.
The defence also challenged Cele’s evidence that he fired 15 shots from his Bidvest-issued 9mm pistol while lying on his stomach behind a cement flower stand.
Cele agreed that each shot would have ejected a spent cartridge near the position from which he fired and said he had pointed out his location to investigating officers.
Van den Heever put it to him that no spent 9mm cartridges were recovered from the scene and that the cartridges collected by police were linked to AK-47 rifles.
“No nine millimetre cartridge was recovered at the scene,” she said.
“Those are lies,” Cele responded, insisting police had recovered the spent cartridges.
The defence further questioned Cele about his inability to describe the alleged gunmen.
He said the parking area was poorly lit and the attack unfolded rapidly, preventing him from identifying the suspects or describing their clothing or physical features.
Cele maintained that he acted in self-defence.
“If I have the firearm in my possession and a person pulls out a gun and shoots at me, I have a right to retaliate. That is self-defence,” he said.
He also testified that his pistol did not have a round chambered and that he had to cock it before returning fire.
Cele said he believed one of the shooters had been wounded during the exchange and recalled seeing someone who appeared to have been shot getting into a BMW.
Van den Heever also challenged Cele over his earlier evidence that an ambulance had arrived to collect someone he believed was dead after the shooting.
“Who was supposedly deceased?” she asked.
Cele suggested it could have been Sibanyoni because he had been shot, prompting the advocate to ask whether anyone had actually told him a person had died.
“No, no one told me someone had died,” Cele replied.
Van den Heever questioned why he had then testified that the ambulance had arrived for someone who was “supposedly deceased”.
Cele said he had assumed that was the case after seeing the ambulance crew.
“I might say they thought the person might have passed on,” he said.
Asked who had formed that impression, Cele replied: “The person who disembarked from the ambulance.”
He said he did not know the person’s name.
The defence then questioned him about Sibanyoni’s movements after the shooting.
Cele testified that Sibanyoni had fled through the estate’s boom gate and hidden after the attack.
“Mr Sibanyoni had tried to flee and enter the boom gate and hide himself at the place where he felt safe,” he said.
When asked whether Sibanyoni later emerged while the ambulance was still at the scene, Cele said he saw him being driven in a security vehicle.
“I saw him when he came out being driven in a security motor vehicle because he said he was not going to go into an ambulance. He doesn’t trust anything,” Cele told the court.
He confirmed the ambulance had already arrived by that stage.
The trial continues.
INSIDE POLITICS
