Julius Mkhwanazi and four co-accused return to Brakpan court in bid for bail

Suspended Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department deputy chief Brigadier Julius Mkhwanazi and four co-accused appeared at the Brakpan Magistrate’s Court to apply for bail in the 2022 murder of Emmanuel Mbense.

Who is charged and why the Schedule 6 classification matters

Mkhwanazi appeared alongside former EMPD officer Keisha-Leigh Stols, EMPD officer Adrian MacKenzie, South African Police Service officer Bhekokwakhe Sibande and civilian Cobus Janse van Rensburg. The State has charged the group with a Schedule 6 murder, meaning the accused must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify release on bail.

Background of the charge

According to the State’s case, Mbense was allegedly tortured and killed at his Brakpan home in April 2022 before his body was dumped in a dam in Duduza, near Nigel. The killing was raised at the Madlanga Commission, where evidence implicated Mkhwanazi in an alleged cover-up.

Testimony and related deaths

The late Marius van der Merwe, who testified before the commission as Witness D, alleged that Mkhwanazi was called to the scene after Mbense was killed and that Mkhwanazi instructed people at the scene to dispose of Mbense’s body at either a mine dump or in a river. Van der Merwe was shot dead outside his Brakpan home on December 5, 2025, weeks after giving evidence before the commission.

Court clash over particulars and bail opposition

When proceedings began the previous week, State prosecutor Nceba Ntelwa told the court the State would oppose bail for all five accused. Ntelwa described the matter as Schedule 6 and said:

“The case is Schedule 6. There’s murder that happened in the course of robbery by a group of people.”

Defence lawyers disputed the State’s position. Advocate Peter Wilkins, representing Mkhwanazi, challenged the Schedule 6 classification, arguing the charge sheet did not support it and that, at most, the allegations amounted to being an accessory after the fact, which he said is not a Schedule 6 offence.

Attorney Gerhald Nel, representing Janse van Rensburg, and Advocate Crystal Keevy, representing Stols and MacKenzie, both argued the State had not provided sufficient information to support its opposition to bail and that the defence could not properly proceed without further particulars.

State’s response and postponement

The prosecutor said the defence had requested extensive particulars on the morning of the hearing and the State needed time to consider what, if any, information it could lawfully disclose, referring to Section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Ntelwa told the court:

“The State cannot be compelled to present its case or disclose information to assist the defence in discharging its burden.”

He added that the State was prepared to oppose bail and present evidence at the appropriate stage but would not be forced to disclose its strategy or evidence before the defence had met its legal obligation.

After arguments from both sides, the presiding officer postponed the matter to Thursday for further proceedings on the bail applications. The five accused are expected to argue why they should be released on bail despite the State’s Schedule 6 classification and opposition to their release.