Pre-trial in Cat Matlala case resumes amid fingerprint dispute and health concerns

The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg resumed pre-trial proceedings in the case against tenderpreneur Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala on 15 June 2026, as the matter moved through final pre-trial preparation ahead of a trial date set for 20 July.

Who attended and bail status

Matlala appeared in court with his wife, Tsakane Matlala, and co-accused Musa Kekana, Tiego Floyd Mabusela and Nthabiseng Nzama. Nzama was excused from Monday’s proceedings. The court record shows that only Tsakane Matlala and Nzama are currently out on bail.

Delays over legal representation and disclosure

Proceedings on Monday were interrupted when Kekana informed the court that his newly appointed lawyer had not appeared and would only be available later. Judge William Karam expressed frustration at the absence and at repeated delays as the judicial recess approached.

“Your attorney, what does he think that he will come when it suits him to come and the court must just convene and wait for his arrival,”

Advocate Annelene van den Heever, representing Matlala and his wife, confirmed that the state had handed over additional material but that disputes remain over CCTV footage and vehicle tracking records. Van den Heever told the court she had received a memory stick containing a document the defence had been short of but had not yet had the opportunity to consult it.

Charges outlined

All accused face multiple charges including attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, fraud, money laundering and defeating the ends of justice. Central to the allegations are claims that Matlala orchestrated violent plots, including the attempted murder of actress Tebogo Thobejane in Sandton in 2023 and alleged attacks on businessman Joe Sibanyoni in 2022 and music producer Seunkie Mokubung (DJ Vettys) in 2024. The accused has denied links to a cartel referred to in past allegations.

Health concerns and fingerprint dispute

Lawyer Nardus Grove asked that Mabusela be referred for specialist medical attention for an eye condition, saying his client has difficulty seeing for about 15 minutes after waking. Grove also challenged police conduct when obtaining fingerprints from Mabusela while in custody, saying the defence was not given sufficient explanation and that the client insisted on being informed of the purpose and on having legal representation present.

State prosecutor Elize le Roux told the court the fingerprinting related to a separate Boksburg investigation in which firearms had been linked and said she had provided basic information to the defence. Le Roux also described the incident that occurred on 7 May as “unfortunate” and “unnecessary”.

“I said it was fingerprints uplifted or retrieved from a white delivery vehicle. Basic information was provided to the defence.”

“Based on that, I said to them, ‘You don’t need anyone’s permission to take his fingerprints. If need be, take them by force so he can do it the difficult way or the easy way’.”

The parties agreed that fingerprinting would take place in court, while the defence insisted on full disclosure of the related case details.

IPID statement clarification and next steps

The court heard clarification over whether Thobejane had made a statement to the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid). Le Roux said an earlier remark had been a misunderstanding that left Thobejane “unhappy” and clarified the complainant had not withdrawn her statement or approached Ipid to make a statement.

“That was an unfortunate slip of the tongue,”

“Ms Thobejane never retracted her statement that she made to us and she never approached Ipid to make a statement.”

The matter was postponed to 17 June for further pre-trial management.