NPA fights to uphold charges against Mashatile's bodyguards

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) will oppose the application by deputy president Paul Mashatile’s bodyguards to have assault and malicious damage to property charges against them withdrawn after being acquitted in an internal inquiry.

Eight members of the SA Police Service VIP protection unit - Shadrack Kojoana, Johannes Mampuru, Pomso Mofokeng, Harmans Ramokgonami, Phineas Boshielo, Churchill Mkhize, Lesibana Rambau and Moses Tshidada - face 12 counts of assault, malicious damage to property, pointing of a firearm, contravening the Road Traffic Act, reckless and negligent driving and defeating the ends of justice.

They were charged after they were filmed assaulting two people on the N1 highway in July 2023.

The accused have launched a Section 174 application, seeking to have the charges dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

In terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if, at the close of the case for the prosecution at any trial, the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence referred to in the charge or any offence of which s/he may be convicted on the charge, it may return a verdict of not guilty.

The group is scheduled to return to the Randburg Regional Court on Thursday, September 11, for their application.

NPA South Gauteng spokesperson Phindi Mjonondwane confirmed that the matter is expected to proceed on Thursday and that the prosecution will oppose the Section 174 application but will advance its reasoning in court.

The court was expected to hear the Section 174 application in August but outstanding transcripts from earlier hearings delayed proceedings.

Should the VIP protection officers fail in their application, the prosecution has reserved the week of November 6, 2025, to continue with the trial.

Action Society, an apolitical civil activist organisation supporting victims of violent crimes and their families through the process of receiving justice, described the Section 174 application as yet another delay tactic in a long series of attempts to obstruct justice.

The case has been plagued by postponements and procedural manoeuvres ever since it started, according to Action Society, which also maintained that the repeated delays amount to abuse of process, denying victims and the public closure.

“We urge the court to dismiss this application so that the evidence in the case can be used to bring justice,” Action Society spokesperson Juanita du Preez said.

In May, the officers' disciplinary hearing found them not guilty on all charges leveled against them.

The disciplinary hearing chairperson, through its report, made findings that the video footage which is a key piece of evidence, could not be authenticated and therefore was regarded as inadmissible.

Additionally, there was a lack of witnesses, which diminished the employer's arguments as it did not have sufficient evidence to substantiate any claims made on its behalf.

"Based on the limited information including the non-attendance of complainant, witnesses, team leader commander and the SA National Roads Agency Limited or author of the video footage and on the standard of proof as it requires the party (employer representative) with the burden of proof to demonstrate that it is more likely than not their claim of defence will succeed.

The employer representative failed in providing substantial evidence as there was an unavailability of compliant statements, witnesses to testify, authentication of video footage and numerous contradictions with regard to the argument of the employer representative and investigating officer," the hearing report noted.

It added that the presiding officer applied equally the rule of law on the standard of proof in terms of a balance of probabilities and found the members not guilty as there was no substantial evidence based on what was presented to him as the presiding officer, which resulted in the members being found not guilty on all charges levelled against them.

The victims' lawyer Ulrich Roux did not respond to requests for comment on Saturday.

loyiso.sidimba@inl.co.za