The State v Manamela; The State v Mdlalose

The appellants were arrested in Johannesburg while carrying boxes containing goods that had recently been stolen from a parked vehicle. They claimed they were merely assisting a hawker known as 'Shorty' by carrying the boxes to a taxi rank and denied any knowledge that the goods were stolen. In the regional court they were acquitted of theft, as their version was reasonably possibly true, but convicted under section 37(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955, which placed a reverse onus on them to prove that they had reasonable cause for believing the goods were lawfully possessed. They were sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the Witwatersrand High Court set aside the convictions and declared the reverse onus unconstitutional, referring the declaration to the Constitutional Court for confirmation.

The Constitutional Court confirmed the High Court’s order declaring the words 'proof of which shall be on such first-mentioned person' in section 37(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955 unconstitutional and invalid, with the order operating subject to the limitations on retrospectivity set by the High Court.

This case is a leading Constitutional Court authority on reverse onus provisions in criminal law. It reaffirmed the centrality of the presumption of innocence and the right to silence in South African criminal procedure, and clarified that full legal burdens on accused persons are generally incompatible with section 35(3)(h) of the Constitution unless clearly justified. The judgment influenced later legislative drafting and constitutional analysis of statutory presumptions.