PRETORIA, Monday 31 August 2026 — The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has reserved judgment until 7 September on former National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula’s application to be discharged from her corruption and money-laundering trial without presenting a defence, after prosecutors argued that the evidence already before the court establishes a case for her to answer.
Mapisa-Nqakula faces 12 counts of corruption and one count of money laundering arising from allegations relating to her period as defence and military veterans minister between 2016 and 2019.
She has pleaded not guilty and denies wrongdoing.
The State alleges that Mapisa-Nqakula solicited approximately R4.5 million from defence contractor Nombasa Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu and received about R2.1 million in cash.
Mapisa-Nqakula brought her application under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act after prosecutors closed their case earlier this month.
Section 174 allows a court to discharge an accused at the close of the prosecution’s case if it finds there is no evidence on which a reasonable court could convict.
If her application succeeds, Mapisa-Nqakula would be acquitted without being required to testify or call defence witnesses.
If it fails, the trial will proceed to the defence case.
Her advocate, Siyabulela Mapoma, argued on Monday that prosecutors had failed to establish the necessary elements of the offences and that their case relied heavily on inferences and the evidence of Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu.
The defence argued there was no direct evidence showing Mapisa-Nqakula physically receiving the alleged cash payments.
It also challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of WhatsApp messages containing words including “impepho”, “snuff” and “padkos”, which the State alleges were coded references associated with requests for payments.
Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu previously testified that she made payments to Mapisa-Nqakula and that coded language was used in communications between them.
She told the court she made the payments because she feared the consequences of refusing the then minister, while denying that she paid money to obtain defence contracts.
The prosecution rejected the defence’s argument that the case rests solely on Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu’s testimony.
State advocate Emile van der Merwe told the court that her evidence had been corroborated by other witnesses and that sufficient prima facie evidence existed for the trial to continue.
The State called 16 witnesses before closing its case, including Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu, her family members, Deputy Defence Minister Bantu Holomisa and witnesses connected to renovations at Mapisa-Nqakula’s Johannesburg home.
Van der Merwe described the Section 174 application as either an attempt to test the court’s view of the prosecution case or a “fishing expedition” to establish the arguments the defence would need to confront if the trial continued.
The prosecutor also pointed to evidence concerning cash payments for renovations at Mapisa-Nqakula’s home.
Financial records presented during the trial showed that cash withdrawals from family bank accounts were insufficient to account for the amounts allegedly paid to builders, according to the State.
Prosecutors argue that this evidence supports an inference that cash allegedly received from Ntsondwa-Ndhlovu was used towards the renovations.
The defence disputes that inference.
The proceedings are politically significant because Mapisa-Nqakula occupied some of South Africa’s most senior constitutional and executive offices.
She served as defence and military veterans minister from 2012 until 2021 before becoming Speaker of the National Assembly.
Mapisa-Nqakula resigned as Speaker and as an MP in April 2024 after prosecutors moved to arrest her.
Her resignation followed a search-and-seizure operation at her Johannesburg home and unsuccessful litigation aimed at preventing her arrest.
She subsequently surrendered to police and was charged.
The case has since tested allegations concerning the relationship between senior political office-holders and companies conducting business with the state.
No finding has yet been made that Mapisa-Nqakula received corrupt payments.
The decision now facing Judge Mashudu Munzhelele is also procedurally important.
A Section 174 ruling is not a determination based on the complete evidence that would ordinarily be heard during a criminal trial.
Instead, the judge must decide whether the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence requiring Mapisa-Nqakula to answer the allegations.
The threshold therefore determines whether the former Speaker must proceed with a defence at all.
Should the application be dismissed, Mapisa-Nqakula will have to decide whether to testify herself and whether to call other witnesses.
That could expose her account of the alleged payments, WhatsApp communications and funding of the home renovations to cross-examination by prosecutors.
If the application succeeds, the proceedings against her would end without that defence evidence being heard.
The court will deliver its ruling on Monday, 7 September, making the decision the next major point in a case that has followed Mapisa-Nqakula from her resignation as head of Parliament into a full criminal trial.
