‘They have a case to answer’: Isaac Satlat murder suspects denied bail
· Citizen
Three men linked to the murder of e-hailing driver Isaac Satlat will remain in custody after the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court rejected their bail applications on Tuesday, 23 June 2026.
Goitsione Machidi, McClaren Mushwana and Thabang Kenneth Mothwa returned to court in a renewed attempt to secure their release, having previously abandoned their bail applications.
Visit esporist.com for more information.
The court, however, ruled against them, citing strong evidence presented by the state.
Isaac Satlat murder and robbery
The three accused are part of a group of six individuals facing premeditated murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances charges.
Their co-accused are Dikeledi Tears Mphela, Tumishang Mogau Mabutla, and Ofentse Senwamadi.
The charges stem from the killing of Satlat, who was strangled to death on 11 February 2026 while working as an e-hailing driver.
The 23-year-old Nigerian’s Suzuki Ertiga was taken during the incident and was later found abandoned in Atteridgeville, west of Pretoria.
The retrieval of dashcam footage from inside the victim’s vehicle played a key role in identifying the suspects and ultimately led to their arrest.
Evidence links suspects to crime
In delivering his ruling, the magistrate pointed to crucial evidence, including the discovery of Satlat’s missing cellphone, that connected the three men to the crime.
The court had earlier heard that some of the stolen items were discovered at Mothwa’s residence during his arrest.
“He was asked about those items, and he agreed to have stolen the items.
“This is not hearsay evidence because accused six admits the items were found in his possession,” the magistrate said.
“For me, it is sufficient to say there is evidence linking the accused to the hijacking,” he continued.
The magistrate also expressed concern over the reliability of statements made by one of the accused, particularly regarding his denial of knowing others allegedly involved in the crime.
“In the case of accused three, my biggest problem is that he seems not to be telling the truth when he says he did not know accused one and accused four,” he said.
Accused have a case to answer
The court found that the state presented sufficient initial evidence to support the charges against the accused.
“In the present case, all the defence counsel have argued the state’s case is very weak. With due respect, I do not agree with this submission.
“I cannot agree with the submission in light of the fact that accused one himself has admitted entering the hijacked motor vehicle.
“I cannot agree with the submission in light of the fact that accused three is trying to mislead me as to whether or not he knew accused one and accused four prior to the incident.”
The presiding officer concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting bail and denied the applications.
The presiding officer ruled that the accused had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify their release from custody, denying them bail.
“In my view, they have a case to answer on the robbery charge.”
The case has been postponed to 1 September 2026 for further investigations.