Road rage case returns to spotlight as Roeloff du Plessis challenges court ruling

Road rage case returns to spotlight as Roeloff du Plessis challenges court ruling

A tense road rage incident that began at a darkened Pretoria intersection has once again landed in the legal spotlight this time with constitutional questions about fairness, public pressure and the rule of law hanging in the balance.

Advocate Roeloff du Plessis SC, a senior legal figure who has previously served as an acting judge, has confirmed he will appeal a Gauteng High Court ruling that cleared the way for his prosecution on a charge of attempted murder.

The judgment, delivered this week by Judge Frances Reid, set aside an earlier urgent and in camera order that had temporarily blocked the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) from charging him.

A traffic light, load shedding and a violent escalation

At the heart of the case is an altercation that unfolded one evening in September 2023, at an intersection where traffic lights were out due to load shedding, a scenario all too familiar to Gauteng motorists.

According to court records, Du Plessis’ car was struck on the rear bumper by another vehicle driven by Pretoria resident Conrad Pretorius. Du Plessis followed the car to obtain its licence plate number. Both vehicles eventually stopped in a cul-de-sac, where the confrontation escalated from words to physical violence.

The exact sequence of events remains hotly disputed. What is common cause is that both men exited their vehicles and a fight followed.

Du Plessis maintains that he acted in self-defence after being punched, falling to the ground and briefly losing consciousness. He claims Pretorius continued assaulting him, prompting him to stab Pretorius twice with a pocketknife to protect himself.

Pretorius survived the incident.

From no prosecution to a reversal

Initially, the NPA decided not to prosecute Du Plessis, accepting his explanation of self-defence. That decision, however, did not stick.

In 2024, the NPA reviewed its stance following representations made by AfriForum, which publicly backed Pretorius and accused the prosecution of going soft on a powerful legal figure. The issue quickly spilled into public debate, with social media split between those arguing self-defence and those demanding accountability regardless of status.

Du Plessis told the court the representations amounted to a one-sided attack and that he was never given a proper opportunity to respond. His legal team argued that contradictory versions by Pretorius and his witnesses were not properly ventilated before the NPA reversed its decision.

Judge stresses equality before the law

When the matter returned to court, both the NPA and Pretorius opposed any further delay, arguing that Du Plessis should raise his grievances during a criminal trial rather than block it entirely.

Judge Reid agreed, emphasising that the rule of law demands equal treatment.

“Despite significant social prejudice against Du Plessis,” she said, the court had to balance his rights, those of Pretorius and society’s interest in seeing justice done.

While acknowledging the reputational harm Du Plessis has suffered, the judge ruled that public confidence in the justice system required the case to proceed.

Appeal pauses prosecution, for now

Du Plessis has now applied for leave to appeal, arguing that the court erred on several legal grounds. That application automatically suspends the ruling, meaning the NPA cannot prosecute him until the appeal process is finalised.

Meanwhile, Pretorius has also launched a civil claim, seeking R12 million in damages.

More than a road rage case

Beyond the personal stakes, the case has become a mirror of broader South African anxieties, about violence on the roads, load shedding’s ripple effects, and whether public pressure can sway prosecutorial decisions.

For now, the legal battle is far from over. As the appeal process unfolds, the case continues to test not only two opposing versions of a violent night, but the justice system’s ability to remain impartial under intense public scrutiny.