Zandile Mafe

Zandile Mafe during his bail application in the Cape Town Regional Court on Saturday, 29 July. Photo: Storm Simpson.

Zandile Mafe expected to appear in Cape Town High Court for pre-trial conference

Alleged Parliament arsonist Zandile Mafe is expected to appear in the Cape Town High Court for a pre-trial conference on Friday. He previously said he would plead not guilty to the arson and terror charges he faces.

Zandile Mafe

Zandile Mafe during his bail application in the Cape Town Regional Court on Saturday, 29 July. Photo: Storm Simpson.

Zandile Christmas Mafe is expected to appear before the Cape Town High Court on Friday, 12 August, for a pre-trial conference. He stands accused of terrorism charges related to the burning of Parliament at the start of the year and has been in custody since January.

ZANDILE MAFE MAKES HIGH COURT APPEARANCE

At his last appearance in the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court, Mafe was served with an indictment and summary of facts by the State after it finally completed its investigations and submitted outstanding reports.

Senior State Advocate, Mervyn Menigo, said the indictment lists charges of housebreaking with intent to commit arson, arson, terrorism and theft.

The State alleges that Mafe engaged in terrorist activity by setting Parliament on fire and destroying the Old and New Assembly buildings between 1 and 2 January.

After being served, Mafe can plead to the charges he faces.  On 9 June, his defence said they would consult with him once they received the documents from the State.  The accused previously said he would plead not guilty and that he intends to sue the government.

As previously reported, Mafe’s legal applications have seen his defence appear in the High Court on his behalf on a number of occasions.

In January, High Court Judge President John Hlophe set aside his referral to Valkenberg Psychiatric Hospital.

Dali Mpofu, who leads Mafe’s defence, also twice appealed the accused’s refusal of bail. At first, the court reached a split decision. In May, a third judge was added to the bench and the appeal was dismissed after another split judgement with two of the three presiding officers ruling against the appellant.

READ MORE: