Former state security minister Bongani Bongo’s case postponed to next month.

By Lehlohonolo Lehana.

Photo Credit: Adrian de Kock.

The Nelspruit Specialised Commercial Crimes Court in Mbombela has postponed the case against former state security minister Bongani Bongo and co-accused to 2 May.

Bongo and 11 other people, including four companies, are facing 69 charges related to fraud, theft, corruption and contravention of the Public Finance Management Act in connection with a R74 million land deal by the Mpumalanga Department of Human Settlements (DoHS) in 2011.

The state has alleged that the accused conspired to inflate the prices of two farms that were purchased on behalf of the department.

The former farm owners only received a portion of the funds paid by the state, with the remainder being pocketed by the accused.

Bongo was the department’s legal advisor at the time of the deal. He was part of a committee appointed by the then-head of the department to negotiate the purchase of the farms.

He is said to have recommended the appointment of Singwane Attorneys as conveyancers for the department during the purchase of the two farms.

Singwane Attorneys allegedly paid Bongo R1 million through his wife’s business account and made deposits for two vehicles registered under his brother’s name, Sipho Bongo.

Bongo was arrested in 2020 and released on bail of R10 000.

Bongo and his co-accused are now seeking to have their case struck off the roll, and have argued that the state’s case against them is weak.

The magistrate was expected to hand down judgment in the matter today.

National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) spokesperson in Mpumalanga, Monica Nyuswa said, “The matter was in court today for judgment on Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, all role players made prior arrangements to postpone the matter to 2 May 2024. Only one accused appeared.”

Section 174 involves the right of an accused to be discharged from the offence, he has allegedly committed where, at the close of the State’s case, there is no evidence on which the court may draw the accused to the charge.

Scroll to Top