Katiso ‘KT' Molefe denied bail in DJ Sumbody murder case
Image: Simon Majadibodu/IOL
Businessman Katiso 'KT' Molefe has been denied bail by the Alexandra Magistrates' Court in connection with the 2022 assassination of music producer and club owner Oupa 'DJ Sumbody' Sefoka.
Magistrate Renier Boshoff ruled on Wednesday that Molefe failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify his release on bail. He will remain in custody until his next court appearance on September 18, 2025.
Boshoff said that Molefe also has a pending case in another court relating to the murder of Armand Swart, who was shot and killed on April 17, 2024.
He said Molefe and his three co-accused - Michael Pule Tau, Musa Kekana, and Diego Floyd Mabusela - are implicated in multiple related cases.
Molefe was arrested in July by the police's political killings task team in Gauteng. He faces several charges, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and possession of unlicensed firearms and ammunition.
The state alleges Molefe orchestrated the fatal shooting of DJ Sumbody and his two bodyguards, Sibusiso Mokoena and Sandile Myeza, in Woodmead, Johannesburg, in November 2022.
At the time of his arrest, he was already out on bail in a separate assassination case.
His co-accused - Tau, Kekana, and Mabusela - have not applied for bail.
In court, Boshoff referenced evidence presented by the state, including cellphone records and WhatsApp messages. He said the state had established a pattern of communication between Molefe and his co-accused, particularly following the DJ's murder.
'It is quite apparent that the gunmen were awaiting payment from the applicant for these hits,' Boshoff said.
'It is significant that the phones of accused one and two were picked up at the same cellphone tower as the applicant's on the same day - November 24.'
He added that on that day, accused number one deposited R100,000 into his bank account, while accused two and three also made substantial deposits. Boshoff noted the geographical distances between the accused and the applicant's residence, suggesting coordinated movement.
'The cellphone records following these so-called hits are indeed very interesting,' he said.
'The accused one was frantically trying to reach the applicant moments after the Sandton shooting - no less than eight calls were made.'
He further revealed that the accused one contacted Molefe after another killing - the murder of DJ Vintos in Orlando - and that Molefe had been actively involved in discussions around bail applications for his co-accused.
'On July 15, 2024, he sent a message to the accused 's wife: 'Appearance for bail application today. Next court appearance, bail will be granted for him,' said Boshoff.
'Then, on 2 August 2024, the applicant sent a WhatsApp message saying, 'Bail granted,' to which his friend replied, 'Good work, my brother.' The applicant responded, 'This is evidence of what teamwork can achieve, my brother.''
Boshoff said the state had presented strong evidence linking Molefe to the alleged criminal enterprise.
'Considering all the relevant facts and circumstances before the court, the court makes a value judgment and finds that the applicant failed to put forward exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail,' he said. 'His application is accordingly refused.'
Dressed in a suit, Molefe was told by the magistrate that his next court appearance would be on 18 September, when he is expected to appear alongside his co-accused for the indictment.
IOL News previously reported that the same AK-47 rifle used in DJ Sumbody's killing was linked through ballistic analysis to three other high-profile murders: DJ Vintos, Armand Swart, and Don Tindleni.
DJ Vintos, real name Hector Buthelezi, was shot dead outside a nightclub in Orlando East in March 2022. Tindleni was killed on the N1 highway near the N17 offramp in March 2023, while Swart was murdered in April 2024 in what investigators believe was a case of mistaken identity.
'Ballistics and other overwhelming evidence link the same suspects to all these murders,' SAPS national spokesperson Brigadier Athlenda Mathe previously said
simon.majadibodu@iol.co.za
IOL News
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
3 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Case against driver who allegedly killed teen girl, 13, postponed
The case against a woman accused of ploughing into a group of teenage girls during a coming-of-age ceremony, killing one of them, has been postponed to September 26. Martha Christina, 67, briefly appeared in the Germiston magistrate's court on Wednesday. She faces a culpable homicide charge and is out on R5,000 bail. The state asked for further investigations into the death of Thando Pretty Mahlangu, 13.. Part of the information the state is to gather are photos and video footage of the incident. On 28 June, Christina allegedly drove into the crowd in Dinwiddie, Germiston, where girls had gathered for a traditional ceremony at the Khumalo home. Mahlangu's family said they had hoped Wednesday's court appearance would see the charges upgraded to murder. 'The pictures and video the state wants to retrieve were always part of the docket and were given to police,' said family spokesperson Mzwandile Soyaya . 'They also asked for the hospital report, postmortem and scene reconstruction, which were submitted. Why is this information still not before court? Is this a delay tactic or what?'
The Star
3 hours ago
- The Star
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Investec Witness Admits Contradictions in Rushil Singh Fraud Trial
During the ongoing fraud trial of Rushil Singh, a key Investec employee testifying for the State admitted under cross-examination that Singh was not directly involved in the alleged fraud. This acknowledgment challenges a central aspect of the prosecution's case, which is based on Singh's position as CEO of BIG and assumptions about his knowledge of the loan witness initially testified that the financial guarantee involved in the case was 'cash backed.' However, under questioning by the defense, he conceded that this was incorrect. 'The guarantee was not, in fact, cash backed,' the witness said. He further explained that no contractual agreement explicitly required the guarantee to be backed by cash. 'There was an assumption that the guarantee was cash backed, but there is no documentary proof to support this,' he added. This admission weakens the prosecution's argument that Singh knowingly engaged in fraudulent activity related to the guarantee. The witness also contradicted himself multiple times during cross-examination. When reminded that he was under oath, he responded, 'No man is infallible.' The defence highlighted these inconsistencies to question his credibility. Compounding these issues, the court heard that the original R20 million guarantee issued by Stanbic Bank was initially cash backed and included a conditional clause confirming this security. However, it was Investec that requested the removal of this clause, transforming the guarantee from a secured instrument to an unsecured one. 'The original Stanbic guarantee was secured, but Investec itself asked for the security to be removed,' the defence argued, raising concerns about Investec's internal oversight and defense further emphasized that Singh's involvement is based on presumption rather than evidence. 'The State's own witness conceded Rushil Singh was not directly involved,' the defence said. 'Singh's implication rests solely on the assumption that he must have known about a cash backing requirement, a notion without contractual or factual basis.'Adding to the scrutiny of Investec's role are allegations that several Investec employees received personal benefits from Nishani Singh, related to the loans. The Star has learnt of a new man on the story, referred to as Mr X reportedly received monthly payments of R19,000 through a shell company registered in his name from December 2020 to October 2021 — the period during which the loan agreements were being structured and finalized. Mr X. also received a lump sum payment of R70,000 in August 2020 and may have received a R2 million contribution towards his Pretoria home's construction. After resigning from Investec in June 2021, he joined BIG as a director with a reported monthly salary of R300, other bank employees were linked to questionable benefits. Mr X.2 received two Sandton City gift vouchers worth R10,000 each, given during active loan negotiations. Mr X.2 was given a fully paid Sun City trip in December 2016. The defence suggests these benefits breached banking ethics and could constitute inducements.
