The Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Bongani Bongo

The respondent, a Member of Parliament, was charged with one main count and two alternative counts of corruption under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 (PRECCA). The state alleged that on 10 October 2017 the respondent offered gratification to Mr Mtuthuzeli Vanara, a senior parliamentary official and evidence leader of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee inquiry into Eskom, to induce him to feign illness or take sick leave so as to delay or derail the inquiry. Mr Vanara testified that the respondent told him to ‘name the price’ and that the respondent would obtain the money from ‘Eskom people’ and pay it to him. Mr Vanara immediately reported the incident to senior parliamentary officials. At the close of the state’s case, the High Court discharged the respondent under s 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The state applied to reserve questions of law under s 319 of the CPA, which the trial court refused. The Director of Public Prosecutions then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Leave to appeal was granted. The questions of law were reserved and considered. The third and sixth questions of law were determined in favour of the state. The order discharging the respondent under s 174 of the CPA was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the High Court for trial de novo before a differently constituted court.

This judgment clarifies the scope of questions of law that may be reserved under s 319 of the CPA and confirms that misdirections regarding the elements of an offence and the use of previous consistent statements constitute errors of law. It reaffirms that corruption under PRECCA is complete upon an offer of gratification, even without payment or agreement. The case is significant for prosecutorial appeals following s 174 discharges and for the interpretation of anti-corruption offences in South African law.