Mr Maluto Singo was warned by a magistrate to appear in court on 17 January 1997 on charges of common assault and malicious injury to property. He failed to appear. In terms of section 72(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, a warrant was issued for his arrest and, after his arrest, a summary enquiry was held to determine whether his failure to appear was due to fault on his part. Singo explained that he believed the matter had been settled with the complainant and that, due to a misunderstanding, he went to work and was later sent to Namibia. The magistrate rejected this explanation, convicted him of failing to comply with the warning, and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine. On appeal, the Venda High Court set aside the conviction and sentence and declared part of section 72(4) unconstitutional, prompting confirmation proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court confirmed the High Court’s declaration of constitutional invalidity of the words in section 72(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act that place a reverse onus on the accused. The declaration of invalidity was accompanied by a limited retrospective effect, applying only to matters where verdicts were entered after 27 April 1994 and where appeals or reviews were pending or still capable of being instituted.
This case is significant for clarifying that even summary criminal procedures must comply with the constitutional right to a fair trial. It reinforced the principle that reverse onus provisions imposing a legal burden on accused persons are generally inconsistent with the presumption of innocence. The judgment also provided guidance on how summary enquiries under the Criminal Procedure Act should be conducted in a constitutionally compliant manner.