Court orders rearrest of four

Judge rules against magistrate’s decision to strike case off the roll for third time

ACOURT has ruled that four men facing armed robbery and attempted murder charges may be rearrested for trial – for the fourth time. In doing so, the Grahamstown High Court found a magistrate’s decision to strike the matter from the roll because of unnecessary delays was not in accordance with justice.

The ruling comes after two Port Elizabeth magistrates released the men from custody on three separate occasions, only for the police to rearrest them once more.

Eventually, chief magistrate Christo Schutte was forced to intervene.

The matter went on review, with Judge Elna Revelas asked to rule on the legality of authorising warrants for the rearrest of accused persons who had appeared previously with regard to the same offence, and where the case had been struck from the roll.

Xolani Hewu, Andile Nkata, Sithembele Sophangisa and Thanduxolo Thandani were arrested in January last year.

They appeared in the Motherwell Regional Court on May 4. Then, on June 22, the matter was remanded to August 19 for trial.

On that day, the matter did not proceed as there was no interpreter to assist the complainant, and the case was postponed to October 5 when the interpreter was once again unavailable.

The prosecutor requested a further postponement, with the accused to remain in custody.

Revelas said by now the men had already been in custody for almost 10 months.

“The regional magistrate in question refused to postpone the case again and struck the matter from the roll,” Revelas said.

However, the accused were almost immediately rearrested during the lunch adjournment.

They were all brought before court again the following day, but this time appeared before a different presiding officer, identified only as magistrate Rhodes.

While the prosecution submitted that this was done for the purposes of bail, the defence argued that the men were rearrested for the state to circumvent the effect of the trial magistrate’s decision to strike the matter from the roll.

The defence described the state’s actions as malicious.

The prosecutor assured Rhodes that the interpreter would be available to proceed with trial on October 13.

But Rhodes held that the continued incarceration of the accused was unjustified. She then struck the matter from the roll for a second time.

Despite this, on October 13, the matter came before Rhodes once more for trial.

It emerged that the accused had been rearrested that morning on a warrant from yet another magistrate.

In striking the case from the roll for a third time, Rhodes said she was not prepared to entertain the matter any further.

On December 2, Schutte wrote to Rhodes, advising her that there was no basis for her ruling.

He criticised her for second-guessing her colleague’s decision to authorise the warrant of arrest. Rhodes stood by her actions.

Schutte then took the matter on review to the high court.

Revelas ordered that the accused be rearrested for trial, but that an inquiry be held into any further requests for a postponement.