Former State Security Minister Bongani Bongo was granted R5,000 bail and released on Monday from the Cape Town Magistrate's Court on corruption charges in which he is accused of allegedly attempting to bribe a parliamentary official.
In a statement issued by the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (Hawks), spokesperson Katlego Mogale said the case is postponed for March 4, when Bongo will appear before the court.
The Head of the unit, Lieutenant General Dr. Godfrey Lebeya, applauded the National Serious Corruption investigating team and encouraged the prosecution team to ensure that the South African citizenry receives the justice they deserve.
“The Directorate will continue to execute its mandate without fear, favour, or prejudice," he said.
Bongo is accused of allegedly offering a bribe to an evidence leader in an attempt to collapse Parliament’s inquiry into state capture at Eskom in 2017, an allegation Bongo flatly denied.
The State had previously alleged that Bongo had committed the crime of “corrupt activities relating to public officers” under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004.
“The ruling that had set him free was overturned by the SCA, which enabled the merits to review the case and put him back on the stand. At this stage, we are certain he will apply for bail … him not being a risk flight, he may be granted bail,” said the source.
Bongo did not respond to questions from IOL.
According to the state court papers about evidence, Bongo allegedly told the evidence leader at a meeting: “Eskom’s people were worried about incriminating evidence against them, and there would be police officials waiting to arrest them.”
However, Bongo had pleaded not guilty to all charges and submitted a written plea explanation denying the allegations. Still, SCA Acting Judge John Smith set aside the previous ruling and instructed the matter be remitted for trial anew before a differently constituted court.
Considering the case's merits, Acting Judge Smith ruled: “It is clear that the trial court was of the erroneous view that the respondent’s request to collapse the inquiry could only constitute the crime of corruption if the latter had been offered a specific sum of money as gratification.
“If the mistakes of law had not been made, the trial court would have found sufficient evidence upon which a court, acting reasonably, may have convicted the respondent of the primary or alternative counts.
“The order of the trial court discharging the respondent in terms of s 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, at the close of the State’s case, is hereby set aside,” he ruled.
The state is expected to argue in its application to put Bongo back on trial.