Murder accused Bafana Mahungela's bail appeal fails

Bafana Mahungela, the Joburg student linked to the murder of Sandton schoolteacher Kirsten Kluyts, has failed in his bid to get bail after taking the decision on appeal.

The Johannesburg high court said Mahungela failed to satisfy the court that he was wrongly refused bail in the Alexandra regional court in December.

In his ruling, high court judge Rean Strydom said evidence before the court proved there was a strong prima facie case against Mahungela.

Kluyts’ body was found on a path near the Sandton Sports Club when people searched for her after she failed to finish the MyRun event in Parkmore on October 29.

Mahungela, 21, was arrested nearly a month after her murder.  

The state revealed images that placed Mahungela in the vicinity where Kluyts’ body was found.

In the judgment, Strydom said: “His explanation for his behaviour not to report his discovery immediately, as he did not want to implicate himself, appears to be suspect but it is an issue for the trial court to decide.”

Mahungela pleaded innocence, saying he found Kluyts’ body and rolled her over. He said he felt for her pulse but there was none and that her neck was swollen.

“He realised that she was dead but thought that his fingerprints could have been left on her clothing since he touched her. Given the sensitive racial dynamics in SA, he decided to distance himself from his finding of a dead body to avoid suspicion aimed at him.

“He made no alarm but proceeded to undress the deceased to avoid the lifting of fingerprints from her clothing implicating him in her death. He admitted wearing her T-shirt but failed to provide an explanation for this. He admitted disposing of the clothing items of the deceased but denied taking her watch and dark glasses,” said Strydom..  

He also said Mahungela never provided any plausible reason why he removed his black shirt and replaced it with the blue T-shirt of the deceased.

“In my view, the learned magistrate [Syta Prinsloo] was not wrong in finding that there was a prima facie case established against the appellant. Accordingly, it could not have been found that the state had a weak case, which in given circumstances may contribute to the establishment of exceptional circumstances.”