Alleged Witness D Killer Sotheni in Court Storm After Claiming He “Didn’t Know” His Own Lawyer
Matipandile Sotheni, 41, caused a stir at the Brakpan Magistrates’ Court after claiming—under oath—that he had never met his lawyer before appearing in court. The moment quickly escalated into a courtroom showdown when his legal representative, Eric Bryer, produced paperwork suggesting the opposite.
During the proceedings, Sotheni told the court: “It’s the first time I’m seeing this lawyer today.” He added that the lawyer allegedly “did not even take my statement” and insisted he had “nothing to do with this crime.” He also said he was willing to assist the court.
That explanation did not sit well with the defence. Bryer moved immediately to challenge Sotheni’s account, prompting a sharp exchange that highlighted concerns about credibility and the reliability of Sotheni’s version of events.
Alleged Witness D Killer Sotheni accused of contradicting himself over his lawyer
The turning point came when Bryer presented documents dated 18 March 2026 bearing Sotheni’s signature. According to the submissions made in court, the documents included a Power of Attorney and fee agreements, indicating that Sotheni had already instructed his lawyer well before the current appearance.
The defence’s position was that Sotheni’s claim of not knowing or meeting the lawyer was false, and that he had instead gone through the formal legal process earlier. Bryer’s evidence effectively undermined the statement Sotheni made when he told the court he was seeing his lawyer for the first time.
While Sotheni continued to assert his innocence, the court was left with a troubling contradiction: on one hand, he alleged he had no prior relationship or communication with his legal representative; on the other, documentary proof suggested he had already authorised legal action and agreed to professional fees.
This kind of inconsistency matters in criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving alleged serious violence and alleged organised conduct. Investigators and prosecutors typically seek alignment between a suspect’s account and the facts recorded during the case timeline. Here, the court heard claims that directly conflicted with written records.
Sotheni’s legal identity and past employment also became part of the wider public interest in the matter. He is described as a former SAPS Special Task Force member, and the case has attracted attention beyond the courtroom due to its links to other high-profile developments.
The charges against Sotheni are serious. He is facing allegations of murder, conspiracy to murder, attempted murder, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Prosecutors say these offences relate to the killing of Witness D, identified in court reporting as Marius van der Merwe.
According to the case details, van der Merwe was allegedly shot outside his Brakpan home in December 2025. The shooting is at the centre of the accusations, and investigators claim Sotheni played a role that extended beyond the immediate incident.
The prosecution’s framing of the matter includes not just the killing itself, but also alleged planning and additional violent acts. That is why the conspiracy and attempted murder charges feature alongside the murder allegation. Prosecutors further allege unlawful possession of a firearm connected to the incident.
Bail postponed as courtroom credibility doubts deepen
As the matter continued in court, bail was postponed to 14 May 2026, meaning Sotheni will remain in custody for now. His continued detention keeps the case moving while investigators and the parties prepare for the next stage of the court process.
At the same time, the prosecution’s narrative indicates there is at least one other key figure not yet in custody. The alleged mastermind behind the killing is reported to be still at large, keeping pressure on law enforcement to track down whoever is believed to have orchestrated the events.
Court observations and the documentary dispute over Sotheni’s lawyer claims have added another layer of uncertainty to the proceedings. For the state, the goal is to present a coherent story supported by evidence, witness accounts, and legal documents. For the defence, the challenge is to ensure that Sotheni’s position and the legal arguments remain credible and consistent.
The courtroom drama around Sotheni’s statements—especially his insistence that he was meeting his lawyer for the first time—will likely be scrutinised as the case develops. Any contradictions can influence how the court evaluates testimony and how the public perceives the matter.
With links to the wider Madlanga Commission, the case has drawn heightened attention. The commission’s association has made many South Africans follow the proceedings closely, and courtroom exchanges like this tend to intensify public scrutiny.
In the coming weeks leading up to 14 May 2026, further legal submissions and evidence handling are expected to shape the next hearing. Whether Sotheni’s claims are clarified or challenged further, the immediate takeaway from this court appearance is that his statements did not match the paperwork presented by his own legal representative.
The case remains unresolved, and Sotheni’s fate depends on what emerges as the prosecution presents its evidence and the defence tests it in court. For now, he remains behind bars, and the allegations surrounding Witness D’s death continue to dominate the docket.