Mahlangu v The State

The appellants, Johannes Mahlangu and Edward Rametsi, were police officers. Rametsi was investigating a 1998 shooting incident in which the complainant, Makhamba, a security guard, had shot and killed a suspected robber in alleged self-defence. Mahlangu regularly accompanied Rametsi. In November 2000 and again in January 2001, the appellants approached Makhamba and demanded R600 in exchange for withdrawing the case against him, threatening arrest if he failed to pay. Makhamba reported the matter to his employer, who alerted the Anti-Corruption Unit. A trap was set on 25 January 2001. Makhamba handed R600 to Mahlangu while Rametsi was present. Mahlangu fled the scene with the money when police attempted to arrest him; Rametsi was arrested on site. Mahlangu was arrested almost two years later. Both appellants denied demanding money, claiming they were investigating the whereabouts of the firearm used in the shooting. They were convicted in the Regional Court of contravening section 1(1)(b) read with section 3 of the Corruption Act 94 of 1992 and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, two years suspended.

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The case clarifies the scope of section 1(1)(b) of the Corruption Act 94 of 1992 by confirming that corruption is established where a public official demands a benefit to improperly perform or omit an act within the ambit of their official duties, even if they lack final decision-making authority. It also reaffirms principles relating to judicial impartiality, the high threshold for establishing bias, and the proper application of cautionary rules in cases involving traps and single witnesses.