JUST IN: Senior forensic ballistics analyst Laurence Makgotloe granted bail
· Citizen
Suspended senior South African Police Service (Saps) forensic officer and ballistics expert Laurence Makgotloe has been granted bail.
Makgotloe appeared in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on Friday.
Visit sports24.club for more information.
Murder investigation
He is accused of sabotaging the murder investigation into the death of Vereeniging engineer Armand Swart after allegedly submitting false ballistics reports, removing the firearm and ammunition, and obstructing the murder case.
Makgotloe is facing charges including defeating the ends of justice, being an accessory after the fact to murder and unlawful possession of ammunition.
Bail ruling
The court ruled that Makgotloe has shown that his release, during his bail application, would not jeopardise or interfere with his upcoming trial.
“The court is therefore satisfied that the interests of justice do not require the continued detention of the applicant. On the contrary, there are no substantial grounds upon which bail should be refused, the magistrate Johannes Kruger ruled.
“Having carefully considered all the evidence presented before this court, the contents of the affidavit, the oral evidence, the relevant case law and the current provisions in the Criminal Procedure Act, the court is satisfied that the applicant has discharged the onus resting upon him. The applicant is entitled to be released on bail pending the finalisation of this matter.”
During closing arguments last week, Makgotloe’s legal team portrayed him as a “devoted family man” with a clean criminal record while the State argued that he was a flight risk.
Arrest
Makgotloe was arrested last month on allegations that he tampered with two high-profile murder investigations.
One of the cases involved Swart, who was killed in an alleged case of mistaken identity.
Police spokesperson Brigadier Athlenda Mathe said the police captain was handcuffed following investigations by the task team.
“The arrest relates to allegations of defeating the ends of justice in several high-profile murder cases currently under investigation as well as evidence before the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry.”
“During the operation, the team seized several items belonging to the state, including ballistic reports, several rounds of ammunition and other evidential material relevant to investigations,” Mathe said.
Murder
Swart, of Q Tech Engineering Company, based in Vereeniging, was shot and killed while seated in his vehicle outside his workplace by two suspects who were driving a white Hyundai i20 on 17 April 2024.
He sustained multiple gunshot wounds and was declared dead at the scene.
Madlanga Commission
In October last year Makgotloe testified before the Madlanga Commission, focusing on the murder and crime reports that were tampered with by high-ranking officials.
Ballistics evidence at South Africa’s national forensic labs has come under sharp scrutiny at the Madlanga Commission.
Makgotloe testified that firearms used in the murder of Swart were later linked to 20 other cases, including the high-profile killings of DJ Sumbody, DJ Vintos, Armand Swart, and businessman Don Tindleni.
Ballistic report
A key ballistic report intended to establish those links was riddled with factual errors, omissions, and even incorrect case numbers.
Brigadier Mishak Mkabela, the national head of ballistics, defended the mistakes as “mere typos.” But detectives from the Commission’s task team – including Witness B – alleged the errors were deliberate, designed to conceal connections between the Swart murder weapon and other high‑profile crimes.
Although Makgotloe admitted to making the errors, he said there was nothing sinister about his actions.
He said errors were a regular occurrence in his line of work and could only be corrected once flagged.
Controversy
The controversy deepened when Makgotloe claimed he was kidnapped by investigators demanding a corrected report.
Task team members insisted they were confronting him over misleading evidence.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the flawed report was the result of negligence or intentional obstruction.