Mamase v The State

The appellants were charged in the Bhisho High Court with several counts under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 and one count of fraud. The alleged offences occurred in various places, many outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bhisho High Court. The appellants gave notice of their intention to plead that the court lacked jurisdiction. After the indictments had already been served (thereby commencing proceedings), the National Director of Public Prosecutions issued a written direction in terms of s 22(3) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act 32 of 1998 purporting to direct that the proceedings be commenced in Bhisho. Before the appellants had pleaded, the High Court ruled that the direction was valid and conferred jurisdiction. The appellants appealed against that ruling.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the Bhisho High Court was set aside and replaced with an order that no order is made on the application.

The case clarifies when and how jurisdiction is determined in South African criminal proceedings and strictly construes the power of the National Director of Public Prosecutions to issue directions under s 22(3) of the NPAA. It confirms that such directions must be issued before proceedings commence and that courts may not assume jurisdiction outside the confines of statute. The judgment also emphasises proper criminal procedure and discourages irregular pre‑plea determinations.