The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on Monday, 15 June 2026, resumed pre-trial proceedings in the high-profile case involving tenderpreneur Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala.
The matter is in the final stages of pre-trial preparation ahead of a trial scheduled to start on 20 July.
Matlala appeared alongside his wife, Tsakane Matlala, as well as alleged hitmen Musa Kekana and Tiego Floyd Mabusela as well as Nthabiseng Nzama, who was excused from Monday’s proceedings.
Only Tsakane and Nzama are currently out on bail.
Cat Matlala pre-trial resumes
During Monday’s proceedings, issues arose regarding legal representation for one of the accused.
Kekana informed the court that his newly appointed lawyer was a no-show and would only be available at a later date.
The absence drew sharp remarks from Judge William Karam, who expressed frustration at repeated delays as judicial recess commences next week.
“Your attorney, what does he think that he will come when it suits him to come and the court must just convene and wait for his arrival,” Karam asked the accused.
Kekana responded that he had not been in direct contact with his lawyer and suggested that his legal representative might have confused dates.
Evidence disclosure
A recurring issue in the case has been the state’s disclosure of evidence. The delays have contributed to multiple postponements in recent weeks.
On Monday, Advocate Annelene van den Heever, representing Matlala and his wife, confirmed that additional material had been handed over by the state, but some issues relating to CCTV footage and vehicle tracking records remain in dispute.
“My learned friend provided us with a memory stick that contains one document that we were short of.
“I have not had the opportunity to properly consult the document to see that we are happy with that,” Van den Heever told the court.
All accused are facing multiple serious charges, including attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, fraud, money laundering and defeating the ends of justice.
At the centre of the allegations is the claim that Matlala orchestrated a series of violent plots.
These include the attempted murder of actress Tebogo Thobejane in Sandton in 2023, as well as alleged assassination attempts targeting businessman Joe Sibanyoni in 2022 and music producer Seunkie Mokubung, known as DJ Vettys, in 2024.
Past allegations have linked Matlala to the “Big Five” cartel believed to be involved in international drug trafficking, contract killings and other organised crimes, but the tenderpreneur has denied this.
Health concerns and fingerprint dispute
Separate issues were also raised on behalf of Mabusela.
His lawyer, Nardus Grove, requested that his client be referred for specialist medical attention due to an eye condition.
“He is having a difficulty with his eyes at present. When he wakes up in the morning for at least 15 minutes, he is unable to see.
“He is very concerned about his eyesight,” he said.
Grove also challenged the manner in which the police attempted to obtain fingerprints from his client, allegedly without any explanation, while in custody.
He claimed that state prosecutor Elize le Roux had ordered police officers to compel the fingerprinting through force.
“The head of the prison got involved and said they could not force him.”
Grove added that his client is not refusing to provide fingerprints, but insists on being informed of their specific purpose and having legal representation present during the process.
The state responded that the fingerprinting related to a separate investigation in Boksburg, where firearms have been linked.
‘Difficult or easy way’
Le Roux emphasised that Mabusela’s lawyer was informed about the matter.
“I said it was fingerprints uplifted or retrieved from a white delivery vehicle. Basic information was provided to the defence.
“I was under the impression that this matter was now resolved because Mr Grove said his client agreed to it and that is what I conveyed to the investigating team.”
The prosecutor maintained that legal provisions allow fingerprint collection without a warrant.
“Based on that, I said to them, ‘You don’t need anyone’s permission to take his fingerprints. If need be, take them by force so he can do it the difficult way or the easy way’. Those were my words.
Le Roux later described the incident, which occurred on 7 May, as “unfortunate” and “unnecessary”.
“Apparently from what I understand, accused two was extremely arrogant and obstructive during the process.”
It was ultimately agreed that fingerprinting would take place in court, while the defence insisted on full disclosure of the related case details.
Ipid statement
The court also heard clarification regarding earlier confusion about whether Thobejane, as the complainant, had submitted a statement to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid).
Le Roux stated there had been a misunderstanding that left Thobejane “unhappy”.
“That was an unfortunate slip of the tongue,” the prosecutor remarked.
The prosecutor added: “Ms Thobejane never retracted her statement that she made to us and she never approached Ipid to make a statement.”
The issue stems from earlier defence requests for an alleged Ipid statement, which they reportedly claimed Thobejane stated she was coerced and assaulted to make a false statement against Matlala.
The matter has been postponed to 17 June for further pre-trial management.
