Dailymaverick logo

Maverick News

BLUE LIGHTS CASE

Former Mashatile bodyguards to face music after court dismisses discharge application

Eight former members of Deputy President Paul Mashatile’s VIP Protection Unit are set to stand trial following a magistrate’s dismissal of an application to have their assault charges dropped.
Former Mashatile bodyguards to face music after court dismisses discharge application ​​Eight officers attached to Deputy President Paul Mashatile’s VIP Protection Unit, accused of assault, in the dock at the Randburg Magistrates’ Court. (Photo: Michelle Banda)

On Thursday, the Randburg Magistrates’ Court dismissed a Section 174 discharge application brought by eight former bodyguards of Deputy President Paul Mashatile – keeping the high-profile assault case on track for trial.

Deputy President Paul Mashatile. (Photo: Gallo Images / Die Burger / Lulama Zenzile)
Deputy President Paul Mashatile. (Photo: Gallo Images / Die Burger / Lulama Zenzile)

The accused had hoped to walk away from charges of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and malicious damage to property. Instead, Magistrate Abdul Khan ruled that there was enough evidence to proceed.

Two of the accused, Lesibana Rambau and Johannes Mampuru, will continue to face charges of negligent driving. Four of the accused will continue to face charges concerning violation of the Firearms Controls Act for allegedly pointing a firearm.

The accused include Churchill Mkhize, Phineas Boshielo, Harmans Ramokhonami, Shadrack Kojoana, Moses Tshidada and Pomso Mofokeng.

‘Common purpose’

The eight former officers of Deputy President Paul Mashatile's VIP protection unit appear at the Randburg Magistrate’s Court on February 03, 2025 in Randburg, South Africa. The  former VIP Presidential Protectors Unit officers  are charged with a number of offences, including assault, pointing a handgun, reckless and negligent driving, and malicious damage to property. (Photo: Gallo Images / Sharon Seretlo)
The eight former VIP Protection Unit officers appear at the Randburg Magistrates’ Court on 3 February 2025. (Photo: Gallo Images / Sharon Seretlo)

Magistrate Khan cleared all eight accused of defeating the ends of justice charges.

“Having dealt with the legal analyses of the matter, we now move to the evidence before the court, which finds that the accused will now face charges in relation to malicious damage to property, assault and pointing of a firearm, and reckless driving,” Magistrate Khan said.

“The court is satisfied that all the accused had acted in common purpose in the assault,” added Khan.

Read more: Paul Mashatile VIP assault highlights police protection as an expensive excuse for thuggery and vanity

Not guilty

In May, the eight accused were exonerated in a SAPS disciplinary hearing because the video evidence against them could not be verified. This was an internal police probe, which found that the video footage of the incident was inadmissible as evidence.

The accused had pleaded not guilty and brought a Section 174 application to have the cases against them dropped due to insufficient evidence.

Before bringing the Section 174 application, the accused had made several court appearances and had each been released on R10,000 bail on 1 August 2023. In May 2024, the case was back at the Randburg Magistrates’ Court for a pre-trial hearing.

A video of the incident, which was widely shared on social media, showed the eight VIP Protection Unit members assaulting two off-duty soldiers on the N1 Highway in Johannesburg.

Read more: ‘I look dead in that video’ – Mashatile ‘blue light’ protection unit victim and partner speak a year after brutal highway attack

SAPS advised the person who shared the video footage of the assault to open a case after they complained that they were receiving death threats from unknown people.

According to one of the accused, Deputy President Mashatile was present in the convoy when the incident occurred, although his representatives have said he wasn’t at the scene.

“The video evidence submitted as evidence corroborates the State’s version that the accused had acted in common purpose, as it was observed by [witness] during his testimony that the victims were assaulted by six males when he was shown the video. The accused admitted they were present. At this stage here, the court is satisfied that all eight accused acted in common purpose in the assault,” Magistrate Khan said.

Read more: ‘I saw my life flash before my eyes,’ says victim in Mashatile’s VIP Protection Unit assault case

Face masks

Prosecutor Elize le Roux raised concern regarding the accused disguising their faces with masks during the hearing, stating that this made her uncomfortable.

The accused’s legal representative, Mswazi Makhubele, said he saw nothing wrong with the accused appearing with masks on, and said they could remove them for purposes where the State needed to identify them.

Magistrate Khan upheld the sense of discomfort and ordered the accused to remove the masks.

The trial date has been set for 23-27 March 2026. DM

Comments

Hidden Name Nov 6, 2025, 10:26 PM

How is it possible this dragged out this long? Irrefutable video evidence. Should have been done and dusted in a 1 hour trial. What the hell is wrong with our legal system!?

Thomas Cleghorn Nov 7, 2025, 08:28 AM

The fact that a SAPS disciplinary hearing found them not guilty & stated that the video evidence was inadmissable, in an effort to quash this, speaks volumes about the force "protecting their own" & screw the public. There should be no room for cowboys and loose canons like this in the police. Make a damn example if you want to restore any confidence.

Stuart Hulley-Miller Nov 8, 2025, 07:36 AM

Agreed 100%. It is time for accountability and this will only happen if there is proper control by our leaders, at every level. People need to know that they will suffer firm consequences the courts, management and civil society. The ANC is what our problem is due to their control at every level. CADRE’s.

Peter Dexter Nov 9, 2025, 10:23 AM

As this was Paul Mashatile’s security detail, the South African public have a right to know if he was in one of the vehicles, and thus condoning the behaviour. He should be required to provide evidence of his location if he states under oath that he was not present.