Arrest Warrant Issued but Stayed as Mapisa-Nqakula’s Corruption Trial Is Delayed Again
Updated: 6 hours ago
Former National Assembly speaker and defence minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula has been issued with a warrant of arrest after failing to appear in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on Friday, in the latest interruption to a corruption trial that has followed her from one of the highest offices in Parliament into the criminal courts. The warrant will not be executed immediately.
Judge Mashudu Munzhelele ordered that it be stayed until 11 November, when Mapisa-Nqakula is expected to return to court. In practical terms, the warrant remains suspended provided she appears on the next scheduled date. Her legal team told the court that she was unwell, and the State did not oppose postponing the proceedings. Friday’s absence came while Mapisa-Nqakula was still under cross-examination.
Proceedings had already ended early on Tuesday after she told the court that she was not feeling well. It is also not the first time ill health has interrupted the defence case: on 10 September she missed a court appearance after becoming unwell while testifying the previous day, and a warrant issued on that occasion was similarly held over until her next appearance.
The repeated use of a stayed warrant can sound more dramatic than its legal effect. It does not mean Mapisa-Nqakula has been convicted of an additional offence or that police are presently being directed to arrest her. Rather, it gives the court a mechanism to secure her attendance. Should she fail to appear when required without an accepted explanation, the warrant could then be executed.
The postponement nevertheless matters because the criminal proceedings have now reached an important stage. In September, the High Court dismissed Mapisa-Nqakula’s application for a discharge under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Such an application asks a court to acquit an accused at the close of the prosecution’s case on the basis that there is insufficient evidence requiring an answer.
Judge Munzhelele’s dismissal meant that Mapisa-Nqakula had a case to answer and that the trial would continue with the presentation of her defence. She subsequently took the witness stand and has denied receiving money from defence contractor Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, who is a central State witness in the case. Mapisa-Nqakula faces 12 counts of corruption and one count of money laundering arising from her period as minister of defence and military veterans.
Prosecutors allege that between 2016 and 2019 she solicited approximately R4.5 million in payments from Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, whose company conducted business with the South African National Defence Force, and that approximately R2.1 million was ultimately paid to her in cash. Mapisa-Nqakula has pleaded not guilty and denies receiving the alleged payments.
The case became a major institutional test in 2024 because Mapisa-Nqakula was serving as speaker of the National Assembly when the investigation reached the point of criminal prosecution. She resigned as speaker and as a member of Parliament in April that year, shortly before handing herself over to police.
That history gives the trial significance beyond the allegations against one former cabinet minister.
South Africa’s constitutional system places substantial authority in senior public office, while criminal law is intended to operate independently of political status. A former parliamentary speaker standing trial over allegations connected to decisions made while serving as defence minister therefore places both principles in view: public officials can be called to account, but allegations still have to be proven through an ordinary judicial process.
The present dispute over court attendance should also be understood separately from the merits of the corruption case. A medical absence does not strengthen or weaken the evidence concerning the alleged payments. What it does affect is the administration of the trial, particularly when proceedings are repeatedly interrupted while an accused is giving evidence.
Courts must accommodate legitimate illness while also ensuring that criminal proceedings move forward and that accused persons appear when required. The decision to issue the warrant but suspend its execution reflects that balance: Mapisa-Nqakula has not been immediately detained, but her obligation to return to court has been formally reinforced. Her trial is now scheduled to continue from 11 to 20 November, with additional dates from 30 November to 4 December.
Unless the timetable changes again, the State’s cross-examination of Mapisa-Nqakula is expected to continue when proceedings resume. For the public, the more consequential question remains unchanged by Friday’s absence: whether prosecutors can prove that payments from a defence contractor amounted to corruption, and whether the evidence withstands the scrutiny of a full criminal trial. That determination will not be made by the issuance of a warrant, political history or public perception. It will depend on the evidence placed before the court, the credibility of the witnesses and the application of the law.
End.
Beyond the headline, into the context.
Insightful Daily 24 combines verified reporting with explanatory analysis to help readers understand the issues shaping South Africa and the world. At the bottom of our articles, you’ll also find short videos from our growing digital knowledge library — covering practical topics such as personal finance, employment rights, mental wellbeing and long-term financial planning. From understanding tax-free savings accounts and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act to recognising burnout, managing anxiety and learning about retirement annuities, the library is designed to make important, potentially life-changing information easier to understand and use.
Insightful Daily 24 — where the headline ends, insight begins.
Comments