Sibanyoni case: Decision to set aside contempt conviction against state prosecutor welcomed

The Society of Advocates and Prosecutors of South Africa (SSAPSA) has welcomed the Mpumalanga High Court’s decision to set aside the contempt conviction and arrest warrant issued against state prosecutor Advocate Mkhuseli Ntaba.

The prosecutor had been convicted after failing to appear at the Kwaggafontein Magistrate’s Court on 18 May during bail proceedings involving controversial taxi bosses Joe “Ferreri” Sibanyoni, Bafana “King of the sky” Sindane and two others.

The four are facing extortion and money laundering charges over allegations that they demanded more than R2.2 million in protection fees from a mining businessman.

Extortion case re-enrolled

This ruling follows the controversial bail hearing proceedings in which the former chief magistrate Tuletu Tonjeni threw out the extortion case against the accused.

The matter was re-enrolled at the Delmas Magistrate’s Court, with the suspects being granted bail of R70 000 each.

Ntaba’s conviction had ‘no basis in law’

According to SSAPSA, the judgment vindicated its position that the conviction of a public prosecutor in circumstances such as those involving Ntaba had no basis in law.

“Ntaba is a member of [SSAPSA] stationed at the Mpumalanga DPP’s Office. Indeed, this ruling vindicates the position that we have consistently upheld that summarily convicting public prosecutors in circumstances similar to the one in this case has no basis in our law, let alone the fact that the proceedings themselves were irregular,” SSAPSA secretary Faith Nobele said.

She said they were pleased that this ruling protects the total independence of the prosecutions, in line with the doctrine of separation of powers, in criminal matters and endorses the public prosecutors’ mandate and obligation to prosecute without fear, favour or prejudice.

“As a union, we reaffirm our absolute commitment to promoting effective prosecution, to protect and advance the interests of our members,” Nobele added.

The high court, sitting in Middelburg, on 28 September 2026 reviewed and set aside Ntaba’s conviction and the order authorising his arrest after finding that Tonjeni had committed a gross irregularity by summarily convicting him of contempt while he was absent from court.

The magistrate had also ordered that the Legal Practice Council be notified and that the matter be reported to the Mpumalanga Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) with a recommendation for disciplinary action.

The high court found that the magistrate had used the wrong legal mechanism to deal with Ntaba’s absence.

It held that section 108(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act deals with contempt committed in the presence of the court, including wilfully insulting a judicial officer during a sitting, interrupting proceedings or misbehaving in the place where the court is sitting.

The court also found that the evidence did not establish that Ntaba had wilfully disobeyed the court order.

The magistrate had been informed that Ntaba was travelling to court and was delayed by paperwork in Mbombela.

Although the court considered his late arrival problematic, it found that this did not, on its own, establish deliberate or wilful disobedience.

Concerns about magistrate’s impartiality

The judges further raised concerns about the magistrate’s impartiality after noting that she had already described Ntaba as “unprofessional” and “insolent” during an exchange on 15 May.

The High Court found that the magistrate had issued the warrant after convicting Ntaba but had neither imposed a sentence nor explained the purpose of the warrant.

National Director of Public Prosecutions, Advocate Andy Mothibi, said this judgment follows the NPA’s legal challenge to the order by Tonjeni in the matter.

He said this judgment was a clear demonstration that the NPA will vigorously challenge any decision that it believes to be legally wrong to ensure procedural fairness, judicial accountability, protection of the interests of the NPA and its Prosecutors, and the proper administration of justice.

“The NPA has consistently maintained that concerns arising from the way the magistrates’ court proceedings were conducted raise important issues relating to procedural fairness, judicial decorum, and the integrity of the criminal justice system. These concerns further informed the decision to lodge a formal complaint with the Magistrates Commission for consideration through the appropriate oversight mechanisms,” Mothibi said.