Advocate Roeloff du Plessis is turning to the SCA, appealing an earlier order issued in which the court gave the prosecuting authority the green light to prosecute him following a road rage incident.
Image: Pretoria Bar Association
The Supreme Court of Appeal will take a look at the legal challenge by Advocate Roeloff du Plessis SC, a former acting judge, against a judgment which gives the National Prosecuting Authority the greenlight to prosecute Du Plessis with attempted murder.
This is following a 2023 road-rage incident in which a motorist was stabbed with a pocketknife.
Du Plessis has maintained his innocence from the start and maintained he had acted in self-defence. He earlier obtained an urgent, in camera order that prohibited the NPA from charging him. That order was pending a review application Du Plessis intended to launch against the decision to charge him.
Gauteng High Court Judge Frances Reid in February discharged the in-camera rule nisi, which left the path open for Du Plessis’ prosecution. Judge Reid, however, last week granted Du Plessis leave to appeal to the SCA and conceded that there may be a chance that another court could come to a different decision.
Judge Reid commented that the fundamental question in this leave to appeal is whether the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) failed to take Du Plessis’ explanation of what happened on the day of the incident into consideration, before deciding to prosecute him, based only on the voice of Conrad Pretorius, the alleged victim.
Initially, in 2023, the NPA decided not to prosecute Du Plessis in light of his self-defence explanation. The NPA, however, last year reviewed its decision not to prosecute Du Plessis. This followed an outcry by AfriForum, which backed Pretorius and made representations to the NPA.
Du Plessis told the court that the representations were a strong, one-sided attack against him, and he never had the opportunity to counter this. It was argued on behalf of him that Pretorius’ and his witnesses’ version was contradictory, and if the “real” facts were placed before the NPA, it would not have decided to prosecute him.
The legal challenge followed an incident on an evening in September 2023, when he and Pretorius were crossing an intersection with a non-working robot due to load shedding. It is said that Du Plessis’ vehicle was hit on the rear bumper. Both men got out of their vehicles, and when Pretorius approached him, Du Plessis allegedly pushed him away. The advocate claimed Pretorius kept on punching him and he eventually stabbed Pretorius twice with a pocketknife in self-defence.
In his bid to stay his prosecution pending a review against the decision to prosecute him, Du Plessis maintained he will be severely prejudiced if he is prosecuted before the matter goes on review. According to him, the NDPP’s decision to prosecute him is illegal and irrational. He said the prosecuting authority is applying double standards, as it is ignoring his rights, while trying to appease AfriForum by only considering what Pretorius had to say.
Judge Reid in his judgment in February commented that the rule of law requires that all persons be treated equally before the law. “Despite significant social prejudice against Du Plessis, this court’s duty is to balance his rights and that of Pretorius against societal interest in the execution of justice,” he said. But Du Plessis said the judge erred on several aspects in his earlier judgment.
In his leave to appeal judgment, Judge Reid commented that the crux of this application concerns the NPA Act and the Constitution where it related to the process to be followed when the NDPP executes a decision made on whether to prosecute a person or not. This is a novel point in law and has not been considered in our courts before, he concluded.