MBOMBELA — The Mpumalanga Commercial Crimes Court in Mbombela will hand down judgment on 24 August in a high‑profile money‑laundering matter arising from a COVID‑era PPE tender, magistrate Deon van Rooyen has ruled. The outcome will determine whether four accused and three corporate entities are discharged under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and whether any bail arrangements will be extended.
What the court heard
The matter, which returned to court on 12 August, involves four men — Samkelo Ngubane, Raymond Manzini, Moses Ndlovu and Chris Manzini — and three entities: Zalabantu Trust Estate, Preray Investments and Gatjeni Ndlovu Trading. The prosecution presented its case, after which the defence applied for a discharge under Section 174, arguing that the state had not led sufficient evidence to establish criminality by the accused.
Section 174 permits a court to return a verdict of not guilty if, at the close of the prosecution’s case, the judge or magistrate concludes there is no evidence upon which a reasonable court could convict. The defence submitted that witnesses called by the state failed to directly implicate the accused and that the evidence did not meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations linked to a R5 million tender
The charges relate to a PPE procurement contract valued at R5 million. According to the prosecution, the tender was awarded in circumstances that gave rise to a conflict of interest. The state alleges that the company originally awarded the contract belonged to Chris Manzini, who is the brother of deputy director for disaster management Raymond Manzini. Prosecutors further contend that Raymond Manzini failed to invite competing bidders, compromising fairness in the procurement process. The tender was reportedly awarded to Gatjeni Ndlovu, which then subcontracted to Preray Investments, an entity linked to Chris Manzini.
The head of the provincial Department of Co‑operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta) is named in connection with the matter: Samkelo Ngubane occupies that post and is one of the accused in the trial. The prosecution’s case aims to show a web of transactions and decisions that, it says, amounts to money‑laundering of public funds intended for emergency procurement.
Next steps and potential outcomes
Magistrate Van Rooyen postponed the matter to 24 August to consider the discharge application and any consequences for bail. If the magistrate grants the Section 174 application, the accused would be acquitted of the charges presented to date. If the application is denied, the defence would be expected to present its case and the trial would proceed to its next phase.
When the court hands down its ruling it will also address whether existing bail conditions remain appropriate. Defence counsel sought relief from the charges on the basis of insufficient evidence; the prosecution argued that its witnesses and exhibits were sufficient for the matter to continue.
Why the ruling matters locally
The case has local resonance in Mpumalanga: it involves a senior provincial official and public procurement during the pandemic, a period when emergency purchasing attracted widespread scrutiny across government. A judgment either way will shape how similar discharge applications are assessed in commercial crimes matters and could influence wider public confidence in oversight of emergency procurement.
- Judgment reserved: 24 August — decision on Section 174 discharge and bail extension.
- Accused: Samkelo Ngubane; Raymond Manzini; Moses Ndlovu; Chris Manzini.
- Entities: Zalabantu Trust Estate; Preray Investments; Gatjeni Ndlovu Trading.
- Allegation: money‑laundering linked to a R5 million PPE procurement and an alleged conflict of interest.
Case summary
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Magistrate | Deon van Rooyen |
| Court | Mpumalanga Commercial Crimes Court, Mbombela |
| Next hearing | 24 August — reserved judgment |
| Legal provision at issue | Section 174, Criminal Procedure Act (discharge at close of prosecution case) |
The matter has already been the subject of separate contested applications in the Mbombela courts, including an earlier bid by one of the accused to seek a separate trial on related charges, which the court rejected. Observers and local governance watchdogs will be watching the forthcoming ruling closely: a discharge would end the prosecutions on the basis presented so far, while a refusal would see the matter continue with the defence called to lead its case.
The 24 August judgment will therefore be pivotal not just for the accused and their legal teams, but for how emergency procurement cases in the province are tested in court.
