Nabolisa v The Regional Court Magistrate and Another

The appellant was charged in the Regional Court, Johannesburg, with dealing in or unlawful possession of cocaine under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992, and unlawful possession of paracetamol and methenamine under the Medicines and Related Substances Act 101 of 1965. Acting on police intelligence, SAPS officers searched a house occupied by the mother of the appellant’s girlfriend and found suitcases containing large quantities of powdery substances. Forensic analysis by a SAPS analyst confirmed the substances to be cocaine, paracetamol and methenamine. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to an effective 30 years’ imprisonment, with forfeiture of the drugs. His co-accused was acquitted. After unsuccessful appeals against conviction and sentence, the appellant brought a review application in the High Court alleging that his constitutional right to a fair trial had been infringed, particularly regarding forensic evidence and disclosure. The High Court dismissed the review, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The case reaffirms the limited scope of review proceedings following the exhaustion of appeal remedies and clarifies the threshold for establishing a violation of fair trial rights under s 35(3) of the Constitution. It underscores the accused’s duty to challenge state evidence during trial and confirms that failure to do so may weaken later constitutional complaints.