NPA SUCCESSFULLY OPPOSES BAIL APPLICATION BY ALLEGED LONG-DISTANCE BUS EXTORTION SYNDICATE

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has successfully opposed the bail application of seven accused charged with allegedly intimidating and extorting money from long-distance bus operators travelling between the Eastern Cape and the Western Cape. The accused, Bonke Makalala, Simphiwe Mtshala, Mzuvukile Mbiyo, Siyanda Dyantyti, Gwendoline Mazele, Siphelele Kwaza, and Simphiwe Gxumayo, face 156 charges, including racketeering, extortion, attempted extortion, intimidation, money laundering, kidnapping, interference with essential infrastructure, contraventions of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA), and failure to submit tax returns in contravention of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011.

Makalala did not apply for bail. His co-accused sought to persuade the court that their release would be in the interests of justice. They argued that they would not endanger public safety, commit Schedule 1 offences, evade trial, intimidate witnesses, undermine the criminal justice system, or disturb public order and peace.

The accused provided details of their fixed residential addresses, family ties, and business interests, submitting that their continued detention would negatively affect their families and livelihoods. Most are involved in the taxi industry, while Mazele operates a funeral business and allegedly works closely with Makalala. They further indicated their intention to plead not guilty. Several of the accused have no previous convictions, pending cases, or outstanding warrants of arrest.

However, the personal circumstances of Dyantyti differ significantly. He has a previous conviction for contravening the Arms and Ammunition Act and faces pending charges in the Mthatha Regional Court under case number RCUMC 10/12, including robbery with aggravating circumstances, attempted murder, possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition, possession of a prohibited firearm, and causing an explosion. A warrant for his arrest was issued on 04 March 2026. He also has three pending matters in Cape Town involving assault and assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. A further warrant for his arrest was issued on 05 March 2026.

Following their arrests between 27 and 29 March 2026, the accused initially challenged the validity of the centralisation certificate and sought to have the matter struck from the roll. Senior State Advocate Nico Breyl successfully opposed the application, enabling the commencement of the Schedule 5 bail proceedings, in which the accused bore the onus of proving that their release would be in the interests of justice.

The State relied on an affidavit by the investigating officer, Warrant Officer J.C. September, who outlined the findings of an extensive investigation conducted under Project Tsitsikama. The investigation allegedly uncovered a coordinated racketeering enterprise involving taxi owners and members of taxi associations, including CATA, CODETA, UNCEDO, and the Natal Spruit Taxi Association.

The alleged criminal enterprise systematically targeted long-distance bus companies, including Intercape, Eagle Liner, Greyhound/Aldo Coaches, Chilwans Transport, Vila Mora/Intercity, and Williams Transport. According to the State, the accused demanded protection fees from bus operators in exchange for allowing buses to operate safely on routes shared with taxi operators and to avoid attacks by members of the taxi industry. Compliance was allegedly enforced through threats, intimidation, and violence. The accused are further alleged to have disrupted operations through attacks on buses and threats directed at passengers, while laundering the proceeds through third-party bank accounts.

The court heard that more than 150 incidents of violence and intimidation involving Intercape buses alone have been recorded since January 2021.

Advocate Breyl argued that the State's case is exceptionally strong and supported by complainant affidavits, corroborating witness statements, financial and banking records, communication evidence, records of coordinated meetings, information obtained from the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) and the South African Revenue Service (SARS), as well as evidence relating to money laundering transactions.

He submitted that the evidence points to a sustained and coordinated pattern of organised criminal conduct rather than isolated incidents. He further argued that the accused face the prospect of lengthy prison sentences if convicted, providing a strong incentive to evade trial. The State also presented evidence linking each accused to the alleged offences and outlining the specific role each allegedly played within the enterprise.

In response, the accused maintained that the State's case was weak but presented no evidence to rebut the allegations or explain their submissions. Instead, they relied primarily on the presumption of innocence in support of their bail applications. Advocate Breyl further submitted that taxi-related violence and extortion have become matters of national concern, constituting organised criminal conduct that threatens public transport services and essential infrastructure. He argued that releasing the accused would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Magistrate Reaz Khan ruled in favour of the State, finding that there was a likelihood that the accused would intimidate witnesses if released. The court noted that many of the accused allegedly communicated directly with complainants and were aware of their identities and business operations. Some of the alleged acts of intimidation occurred at bus depots operated by the complainants, who were themselves allegedly subjected to threats, violence, intimidation, and extortion.

The court further found that the State had established a strong prima facie case against the accused. While the accused elected to place evidence before the court by way of affidavit, they did not challenge the substantive allegations advanced by the State. Magistrate Khan noted that the bona fides and reliability of their affidavits could not be tested through cross-examination.

Consequently, the court found that the accused had failed to take the court into their confidence and had not discharged the onus of demonstrating that the interests of justice permitted their release on bail. The matter was postponed to 20 July 2026 to allow the State to finalise its financial investigations and apply for a POCA certificate.

Issued by:

Eric Ntabazalila

Regional Communications Manager – Western Cape