A dramatic turn has emerged in the ongoing trial of Bafana Mahungela, who stands accused in a high-profile case currently before the South Gauteng High Court. The defence has filed a formal request to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) calling for the charges to be withdrawn, citing serious discrepancies in the handling and disclosure of critical DNA evidence.
Mahungela faces charges related to a Sandton incident registered under CAS 797/10/2023. His trial, which has drawn public attention since the contentious bail hearing, was recently postponed to 14 May 2025 to confirm defence trial readiness. The postponement followed the late disclosure of key docket materials and forensic results just weeks earlier.
At the heart of the defence’s submission is a set of DNA results dated 22 December 2023—evidence that reportedly does not link Mahungela to the crime scene. Instead, swabs taken from the deceased’s hands and fingernails indicate the presence of DNA belonging to another woman, suggesting a physical altercation between the deceased and a different individual at the time of her death.
Despite its importance, the DNA evidence was not disclosed during Mahungela’s bail proceedings, during which prosecutors argued he should remain in custody due to pending forensic results. According to the defence, the state’s failure to present this evidence—whether by oversight or delay—violated their client’s right to a fair and transparent process.
“The DNA evidence introduces a new line of inquiry that must be fully explored in the interest of justice,” the defence wrote. “We are requesting that the charges be withdrawn pending a proper investigation.”
Adding to the controversy, during Mahungela’s 23 February 2025 court appearance, state prosecutors reportedly claimed they were unaware of the DNA results, despite their apparent availability months earlier. The defence contends that such omissions severely undermine the credibility of the case and call for immediate remedial action.
Mahungela, described as a cooperative student with no prior record or flight risk, has offered his full support to ongoing investigations should the charges be set aside.
As of now, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has not issued a public response to the defence’s representations. Legal experts anticipate that the outcome could set a precedent for how late-disclosed forensic evidence is handled in South African criminal trials
