Alleged hitman’s daughter loses bid to skip court in Cat Matlala attempted murder trial
· Citizen
The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has ruled that one of the accused in the attempted murder case linked to tenderpreneur Vusimuzi “Cat” Matlala must continue attending proceedings, dismissing her bid to be excused.
The matter resumed on Monday, 27 July 2026, with Matlala appearing alongside his wife Tsakane Matlala, alleged hitmen Musa Kekana and Tiego Floyd Mabusela, and Nthabiseng Zandile Nzama.
Visit turconews.click for more information.
The group have pleaded not guilty to 25 charges, including attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, fraud (defeating the ends of justice as an alternative) and money laundering.
Prosecutors allege that Matlala orchestrated a series of hits, including a 2023 attempt on his former partner and influencer Tebogo Thobejane, a 2022 plot against taxi boss Joe “Ferrari” Sibanyon, and a 2024 incident involving music producer Seunkie “DJ Vettys” Mokubung.
Accused seeks to be excused from Cat Matlala attempted murder trial
Nzama, who is Mabusela’s daughter, sought permission through her lawyer Timothy Chauke to be absent from court until proceedings directly related to her charges begin.
She faces three counts of money laundering and stands accused of helping facilitate payments allegedly made by Matlala to Mabusela in connection with the attempted murders.
In an affidavit read before the court, Nzama described it as “undesirable” to remain present while evidence unrelated to her charges is led by the state.
She argued that the trial schedule – running until 7 August and then resuming between 31 August and 18 September – would make daily attendance unnecessarily burdensome.
“I remain committed to standing trial, complying with every direction of this honourable court and attending whenever my present is required,” her statement reads.
Nzama, currently out on R10 000 bail, also pointed to the impact on her academic work at Stadio Higher Education, where she is studying toward a bachelor of commerce honours degree.
“The lengthy duration of this trial, together with the daily travel between Pretoria and Johannesburg consumes the greater part of each weekday.
“By the time, the court adjourns and I return home, I am physically and mentally exhausted leaving little or meaningful opportunity to devout to my academic responsibilities,” her affidavit said.
‘Protect and preserve her rights’
Chauke made further submissions, arguing that the prosecution had not yet introduced witnesses whose testimony implicates his client.
He conceded that he was aware that more than 80 witnesses would be called, but contended that the defence could not have anticipated how the trial would unfold and as a result, the application was not filed during pre-trial proceedings.
“The evidence of the two witnesses that have been called already before this court, there’s no evidence that implicates accused five,” the lawyer told the court.
In addition, he assured the court that the legal team would continue to attend proceedings to monitor developments in the trial.
“Should there be any other witness not related to the three charges but would want to bring any link in evidence to these charges, we must be there as legal representatives to protect and preserve her rights,” Chauke said.
“I’m not sure as to whether the state is going to call a witness to that effect and I don’t want entangle myself in issues pre-empting what might happen, but as matters stand this is the position.”
Judge rejects request
Judge Cassim Ismail Moosa dismissed the application after the lunch adjournment, emphasising that the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) requires accused individuals to be present in court to ensure fairness.
Although the state did not oppose Nzama’s request, the judge said legal exceptions to physical attendance are limited and apply only in specific circumstances, such as misconduct by the accused, illness, family emergencies, or where prejudice may arise.
He also highlighted that Nzama may be linked to key evidence, including allegations that a BMW used in the attempted hit on Sibanyoni was registered in her name.
Moosa criticised the timing of the application, questioning why it had not been raised earlier.
“It beggars belief to this court as to why it never saw the light of day at that stage because the simple purpose of pre-trial is to thrash these issues out so that when the matter comes before the trial court, it is not ceased with these unnecessary interlocutory applications which detract from the purpose of which this court has been constituted,” the judge said.
He concluded that the request did not meet the legal threshold required to excuse Nzama from attending.
Trial-within-a-trial
Following the ruling, the state called its third witness, Captain Pimi Alfred Sekgobela, as part of a trial-within-a-trial examining contested evidence.
This follows testimony from security officer Christiaan Frederick Sheppard, who completed both his evidence-in-chief and cross-examination.
His testimony forms part of proceedings to determine whether disputed evidence – linked to Kekana’s arrest – can be admitted in the main trial.
Kekana was apprehended soon after the fatal shooting of Vereeniging engineer Armand Swart in a case of mistaken identity on 17 April 2024.
At the time, Kekana was travelling in a Mercedes-Benz V-Class alongside Mabusela and former police officer Michael Pule Tau.
Testimony previously presented at the Madlanga commission indicated that the vehicle was allegedly registered in Nzama’s name.
The trial continues.