Witness D murder case: Defence cites Katiso ‘KT’ Molefe precedence to argue for Sotheni’s bail
· Citizen
Matipandile Sotheni’s legal representative, Nthabiseng Mohumane, has cited several cases, including Katiso ‘KT’ Molefe’s, to argue for her client’s release on bail.
On Friday, Sotheni returned to the Brakpan Magistrate’s Court to continue with his bail application in connection with the murder of Marius van der Merwe, also known as “Witness D”.
Visit asg-reflektory.pl for more information.
Van der Merwe was shot dead at his home in Brakpan on 5 December 2025. His wife and two children survived the shooting.
The former member of the Special Task Force (STF) within the South African Police Service (Saps) is facing 16 charges, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, three counts of attempted murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, ammunition-related offences, and theft.
Family responsibilities
On Friday, Sotheni continued to cite his family responsibilities to argue for his release on bail, saying they would continue to suffer in his absence.
“My family has been borrowing money for legal fees, transport, visits, food, rent, groceries, and tutoring for the children. I called the bank, Capitec, and I was told by the bank that I must come to the branch with my ID and proof of residence. An affidavit for proof of funds. I cannot go to the bank because I am incarcerated,” he said.
“I have a fixed home and family in South Africa, and I need to support my family.”
However, the State argued that, in his initial affidavit, Sotheni stated he had two children, only to say in his supplementary affidavit, read in court on Friday, that he had three children. The State further questioned his home addresses, saying his current lease is on a month-to-month basis.
“The only thing that is keeping him at that residence is the deposit, which he paid,” argued the state, adding he could move out of that place any time.
Sotheni: State’s case weak
The accused further argued that the State’s case against him was “weak”, saying it had not demonstrated strong enough reasons to keep him in custody.
“The evidence they presented, coupled with the inconsistencies, lack of detail, and selective disclosure during this bail application, would not, in all likelihood, secure a conviction.
“The applicant has put evidence before this court that alleges that he is not one to have any resentment or rather harbour any resentment. He has no disposition to violence, and he does not have previous convictions. The applicant further does not have any protection orders, harassment orders or domestic violence orders.”
The defence further argued that the State had split the charges into several to give the court the impression that Sotheni is “dangerous”, when he is not.
Interference with witnesses
The State argued that if Sotheni were released on bail, he would interfere with witnesses. It accused Sotheni of being privy to information not in the public domain, which proves he was still in touch with his former colleagues.
“What the State has also noticed is that the applicant seems to have knowledge of the information that is not in the public domain, or that, in fact, he should not be having possession of or privy to.
“So, paragraph 10.5 of Exhibit A, that is his first affidavit, the applicant refers to a witness who is a paramedic who called the security company at 20.49. That is after the incident of the shooting of the deceased.
“And then on paragraph E on Exhibit C, the applicant talks about the emergency services being called at 20.47. He also has information regarding the reaction of the persons that were on the scene. He says that, I quote, ‘there was confusion at the scene, and the kids were crying, saying that their dad had shot their mom’. This information is not even in the docket that I have as the State.
“Further, he has information about the missing docket, which the State denies. The investigation team received a docket from the murder and robbery unit. It is noted with concern that the applicant seems to be privy to information that is in the docket. The State submits that this is confirmed by the investigator’s statement, where he alleges that the applicant still has friends in the police service, who give him this information.”
Katiso ‘KT’ Molefe to the rescue?
In October last year, Molefe was released on bail after winning his appeal in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, following the Alexandra Magistrate’s Court’s denial of bail on 20 August.
He was granted bail of R400 000 in connection with the murders of popular musician and club owner DJ Sumbody – whose real name was Oupa Sefoka – and his two bodyguards, Sibusiso Mokoena and Sandile Myeza, in Woodmead, Gauteng.
During this time, Molefe was already out on R100 000 bail granted by the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, which had overturned an earlier magistrate’s court ruling that denied him release. This case is related to the killing of Vereeniging engineer Armand Swart.
‘Exceptional circumstances’
Sotheni’s legal representative cited this case as a precedent that must be taken into consideration in his bail application. If Molefe could avail himself for court proceedings after his release on bail, Sotheni could, too, she argued.
“In this matter, your worship, there were four counts of murder. Now, the court, in this matter, visited the issue of conspiracy. There was a count of conspiracy. In fact, there were four counts of conspiracy. Four counts of murder,” argued Mohumane.
“Now, the court, in this matter, visited the issue of exceptional circumstances and the provisions of sections 64 and 28. It is also important to submit that the accused was admitted to bail on both cases.
What is of significance, your worship, in a bail application, is whether the applicant will be secured to make himself available to the proceedings. I submit that he has proven that he will be in attendance. I submit that the requirement for exceptional circumstances has been met.”