SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: A5/26
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 09/2/2026
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
BHEKUMZI MIKE GILBERT SANDLANA APELLANT
and
THE STATE RESPONDENT
This Judgment is herein duly stamped by the Registrar of the Court and is submitted
electronically to the Parties/their legal representatives by e -mail. The Judgment is
further uploaded to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The date of this
Order is 16 February 2026.
JUDGMENT
MAKAMU J
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against the refusal of bail by the Regional Magistrate,
Pretoria, on 22 December 2025. The Appellant, Bhekumzi Mike Gilbert Sandlana,
stands charged with multiple counts under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt
Activities Act 12 of 2 004, offences which fall s within the ambit of Schedule 5 of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 ("'the CPA''). The co urt a quo found that the
Appellant failed to satisfy the onus under section 60(11)(b) of the CPA 1, namely that
the interests of justice permit his release.
[2] The core issue for determination is whether the magistrate was wrong in
concluding that the Appellant poses a flight risk and that his release would
undermine the interests of justice.
Legal Framework
[3] Section 65(4) of the CPA 2 provides that an appeal co urt shall not set aside a
lower cour t’s bail decision unless satisfied that it was wrong. The appeal is not a
fresh hearing; the court must assess whether, on the material before the magistrate,
the decision was correct.
[4] In bail applications under Schedule 5. the accused bears the onus to satisfy
the court on a balance of probabilities that the interests of justice permit release, with
specific reference to the factors listed in section 60(4) 3 of the CPA. The court must
consider whether there is a likelihood that the accused, if released, will:
(a) Where there is the likelihood that the accused, if he or she were
released on bail, will endanger the safety of the public, any person against
whom the offence in question was allegedly committed, or any other particular
person or will commit a Schedule 1 offence
(b) where there is the likelihood that the accused, if he or she were
released on bail, will attempt to evade his or her trial; or
1 Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s 60 (11)(h ).
2 Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s 65 (4).
3 Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, s 60 (4).
(c) where there is the likelihood that the accused. if he or she were
released on bail. will attempt to influence or intimidate witnesses or to conceal
or destroy evidence; or
(d) where there is the likelihood that the accused, if he or she were
released on bail, will undermine or jeopardise the objectives or the proper
functioning of the criminal justice system, including the bail system; or
(e) where in exceptional circumstances there is the likelihood that the
release of the accused will disturb the public order or undermine the public
peace or security.
[5] The strength of the State's case. though not detem1inative, is a relevant factor
in assessing the incentive to flee. particularly where a lengthy custodial sentence is
likely. The Constitutional Court in S v Dlamini 4 affim1ed that the court’s enquiry is
prospective and focused on risk. not guilt.
Analysis
Flight Risk: The Central Issue
[6] The magistrate’s finding that the Appellant poses a flight risk is supported by
several cogent factors:
6.1 Fraudulent Manipulation of Identity Documents : The Appell ant's
history of obtaining multiple identity documents with different dates of birth
and identity numbers demonstrates a capacity and willingness to manipulate
official records to suit his purposes. This is not a mere administrative anomaly;
it re flects a pattern of conduct aimed at obscuring his true identity and
creating alternative identities. A person who has demonstrated the ability to
4 S v Dlamini 1999 (2) SACR 51 (CC)
alter their legal identity poses a heightened risk of fleeing and assuming a
new identity to evade justice.
The court notes that the Appellant was registered at birth as Bhekumuzi Mike
Gilbert Sandlana with identity number 6 […], allocated in 1989 as per birth
certificate serial number B […]. In 1993, he applied for the rectification of his
birth from 28 February 19 69 to 15 Februa ry 1966 with the birth certificate
serial number B […]. He again approached the Department of Home Affairs in
2010 to rectify his date of birth from 15 February- 1966 to 1 5 February 1961
using the same birth certificate with serial number B […]; however. the names
on the birth certificate appear as Mike Sandlana. This suggests that the birth
certificate has been altered without the issuance of a new birth certificate with
new names.
6.2 Unlawful Cross -Border Movement: the evidence from the
investigating officer that the Appellant has moved between South Africa and
Lesotho without documented border crossings indicates his ability and
propensity to circumvent official immigration controls. This directly undermines
his assertion that surrendering his passports eliminates the risk of flight.
6.3 Strength of the State's Case and Seriousness of Charges : The
charges involve substantial amounts of money and carry the prospect of a
lengthy custodial sentence upon conviction. The State's case, as outline d,
appears substantial. It is well -established in our law in S v Nichas and
Another 5 , that the prospect of a severe sentence provides a powerful
incentive to abscond. Diemont J stated :
"In the second place if there ·was a likelihood of heavy sentence being
imposed the accused will be tempted to abscond. Although they have been
naturalized both of them are apparently of Greek descent (having emigrated
to this country only when comparatively grown up) and would presumably
readily find asylum in Greece. They would be the more tempted to do so by
5 S v Nichas and Another 1977 (1) SA 257 (C)
reason of the fact that no extradition treaty exists between Greece and South
Africa."'6
This particular case highlights the Appellant's access to financial means. as
he has a large congregation (according to the Appellant's counsel) and the
likelihood that his church has other branches, which may allow him to
abscond.
6.4 Contradictory Evidence and Lack of Cand our: The magistrate
correctly noted inconsistencies in the Appellant's evidence regarding his
whereabouts at the time of arrest and the circumstances surrounding his
identity documents. In S v Mathebula, Heher JA held that:
'In the present instance the ap pellant's tilt at the State case was blunted in
several respects: first, he founded the attempt upon affidavit evidence not
open to test by cross -examination and, therefore, less persuasive: cf S v
Pienaar 1992 ( 1) SACR 178 (W ); at 180h; second, both the denial of
complicity and the alibi defence rested solely on his say -so C with neither
witnesses nor o bjective probabilities lo strengthen them. The vulnerability of
unsupported alibi defences is notorious, depending, as it does, so much upon
the court's assessment of the truth of the accused' s testimony. Insofar as the
appellant suggested that the police had extracted a n inadmissible confession
from hi m (or his co -accused), he provided no detail which might have
enhanced either his or their reliability or credibility."7
It was further held that:
"But a State case opposed in advance to be frail may nevertheless sustain
proof beyond a reasonable doubt when put to the test. In order successfully to
challenge the merits of such a case in bail proceedings an applicant needs to
go further; he must prove on a balance of probability E that he will be
acquitted of the charge: S v Botha en 'n Ander 2002 ( 1) SACR 222 (SCA)
6 S v Nichas and Another 1977 (1) 1977 (1) SA p263 at para G-H.
7 S V Mathebula 2010 (1) SACR 55 (SCA) at para 11.
(2002 (2) SA 680: [2002] 2 All SA 577) at 230h , 232c; S v Vi ljoen 2002 (2)
SACR 550 (SCA) ([2002] 4 All SA 10) at 556c. That is no mean task, the more
especially as an innocent person cannot be expected to have insight into
matters in which he was involved F only on the periphery or perhaps not at all.
But the Sta te is not obliged to show its hand in advance , at least not before
the time when the contents of the docket must be made available to the
defence; as to which see Shahalala and Others v Attorney-General, Transvaal
and Another 1995 (2) SA CR 761 (CC) (1996 ( 1) SA 725; 1995 ( 12) BCLR
1593). Nor is G an attack on the prosecution case at all necess ary to
discharge the onus; the applicant who chooses to follo w that route must make
his own way and not expect to have it cleared before him. Thus it has been
held that until an applicant has set up a prima facie case of the prosecution
failing there is no call on the State to rebut his evidence t o t hat effect: S v
Viljoen at 561f-g "8
A lack of candour in a bail application is a relevant consideration in as sessing
credibility and the overall risk an accused may pose.
Disparity with Co-Accused.
[7] The Appellant's argument that he was treated differently from his co -accused
is misconceived. The grant of bail is an individualised enquiry. The magistrate was
entitled to find that the specific factors outlined above - particularly the Appellant’s
demonstrated ability to manipulate his identity and move across borders w1detected
- distinguished his circumstances materially from those of his co -accused. The mere
fact that others were granted bail does not automatically entitle the Appellant to the
same outcome.
Other Grounds of Appeal
[8] The Appellant's challenge to the magistrate's .findings regarding threats to
witnesses and disregard for the law do not detract from the central. and decisive,
8 S V Mathebula 2010 (1) SACR 55 (SCA) at para 12.
finding on flight risk. Even if some of these subsidiary fi ndings were debatable, they
do not render the ultimate refusal of bail wrong. The magistrate’s reasoning on the
identity issue and border movements alone provides a sound and independent basis
for the conclusion that the Appellant has not discharged the on us under section
60(11)(b).
Conclusion
[9] I am not satisfied that the magistrate’s decision was wrong. On the contrary,
the evidence regarding the Appellant's manipulation of identity documents and his
ability to move across borders without detection pr ovides a rational and compelling
basis for concluding that there is a likelihood he will attempt to evade his trial if
released. He has therefore failed to satisfy the court that the interests of justice
pem1it his release on bail.
[10] As a result. the appeal must faiI.
Order
1. The appeal against the refusal of bail is dismissed.
M S MAKAMU
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
For the Appellant: Adv Michael R Hellens SC
Assisted by: Adv Meiring
Instructed by: Ivan Monjane Attorneys
For the Respondent: Adv Phumla Dwanc-Alpman
Assisted by: Willem Johannes Van Zyl and Elizabeth Bisi
Instructed by: Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of hearing: 06 February 2026
Judgement delivered: 16 February 2026