Fort Hare murders — alleged mastermind Isaac Plaatjies refused bail again, State cites death threats

The Bhisho High Court has turned down yet another bail application by Fort Hare director of investigations and vetting services Isaac Plaatjies.

Plaatjies’s application was based on new facts relating to a medical condition. He said in an affidavit that he wished to be released so that he could find a job and pay his lawyers and for private medical care. He has been in prison since November 2023.

During his latest application the State revealed that two of the investigators and the advocate prosecuting the accused in the murder cases have received death threats, arguing that the witnesses would not be safe if Plaatjies were released.

The messages “suggested” that the two investigating officers “must be killed together with the State advocate”.

Plaatjies’s two previous bail applications were unsuccessful in the magistrates’ court. An appeal was dismissed in the high court and then by the Supreme Court of Appeal. A subsequent application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court was withdrawn.

Plaatjies was arrested on 17 November 2023 by a task team looking into attempted hit murders on senior executive members of the University of Fort Hare – the vice-chancellor, deputy vice-chancellor – and the murder of the university’s transport manager, Petrus Roets, and the vice-chancellor’s protector, Mboneli Vesele. 

“All these attempted killings and killings appear not to have been random acts of criminality. The indictment and some of the evidence that police have gathered point to an execution that was done with some degree of precision,” Judge Mbulelo Joswana said in his ruling. 

Plaatjies was charged with the premeditated murder and as co-perpetrator in the killing of Vesele.

While pretrial procedures in the Fort Hare murder trial were completed in October, the police obtained further arrest warrants for suspects specifically involved in the killing of Vesele on 14 November. Plaatjies is charged alongside a number of people with links to the university and a group of hitmen from KwaZulu-Natal, a former police officer and an attorney in this case. The State alleges that the murders relate to the awarding of security tenders at Fort Hare.

The warrants issued in November are for Bafana Chiliza (24), Nkosiyazi “Dipopoz” Maphumulo (28) and Siphiwo “Spijojo” Jejane (35). Brigadier Athlenda Mathe said at the time that the trio is believed to be hiding between KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape.

Read more: We condemn the assassination attempt on the Vice-Chancellor of the University Of Fort Hare

Read more: Be part of the renewal of Fort Hare: A clarion call to students, staff and alumni

Plaatjies also faces a charge of premeditated murder for his participation in the killing of Roets.

“There was evidence linking Plaatjies to the murders,” Joswana wrote in his ruling. “Police discovered a hit list hidden in the boot of the Jeep. Police also recovered cartridges in this vehicle which were later linked to the scene of Vesele’s murder. Those cartridges were also linked to the projectile found in his body.” 

Roets and vice-chancellor Sakhela Buhlungu were among 13 people on the hit list.

Joswana said the State alleges that a cellphone confiscated from Plaatjies when he was arrested was the “source of the hitlist” and he had sent photos of 13 people as well as the list to one of the hitmen. It is further alleged that Plaatjies was in touch with one of the hitmen at the time of Vesele’s murder.

Joswana said the State will allege that Plaatjies was the “overseer in the killings while portraying himself as heading the investigations which he was in fact misdirecting”. 

The State further alleges that Plaatjies had sent his own photo to [the hitman], suggesting that he was also a possible victim. He allegedly continued arranging for the protection of some of the victims while he was talking to the hitmen. There was also evidence that Plaatjies had instructed one of the hitmen to throw his phone into the sea after the jobs had been done. 

Plaatjies claimed that his phone had been hacked. He said he did not know the hitman he was alleged to have dealt with, and denied making any phone calls or that he sent him any messages or pictures.

He told the court that he had since “gathered evidence which showed that the cellphone calls of some of the executive members of staff at the university were interfered with. He contended that it was highly probable that due to interference with his calls and communications, his phone was hacked as the interference with phones at the university was never resolved.”

Plaatjies’s legal team further argued that he had a medical condition and needed private healthcare, but Joswana said this new claim was “fraught with problems”.

He continued: “The reading of [Plaatjies’s] affidavit creates an impression of a critically ill inmate who, at times, even struggles to sleep due to the regular and constant need to go to the ablution facilities to relieve himself. This causes him ‘untold pain’, he says. However, a closer look at the letter from his doctor appears to contradict this impression. It specifically says that all that the applicant needs is regular or monthly urology consultations. I understand this to mean that [Plaatjies] must be given at least one specialist urology consultation a month or as required by the medical team that is looking after him subject to the regulatory framework of the department. In one place in his affidavit, the applicant embellishes his doctor’s letter and makes a misleading and alarmist self-diagnosis that he is in danger of progressing towards prostate cancer. Nowhere in his letter does the doctor even remotely make such a conclusion. The applicant baldly makes this magnification and creates the impression that his life is in danger if he remains in custody and that he needs to be released on bail in order to save his life.

“In the same vein, Plaatjies pleads poverty due to having run out of funds to defend himself and to pay for the specialist urologist treatment and consultations. He then contends that his health condition is an exceptional case for him to be released ‘so that he can be able to work and raise funds to save his life’.”

Joswana was not convinced: “The danger that his release from custody may potentially pose to State witnesses cannot be ignored or underestimated and militates very strongly against his release on bail in the interests of justice. The alleged threat to the lives of some of the members of the investigating team and the applicant’s very intimate knowledge of the investigating methods of the police in this case due to his earlier involvement and his deeply intimate knowledge of some of the State witnesses, and how critical some of their evidence may be, all point to the release of the applicant on bail not being in the interests of justice. Plaatjies’s health condition does not change this concerning picture in my view.” DM