Court Orders Continued Detention
The Pretoria Magistrate’s Court has denied bail to pan-African activist Kémi Séba, his son Khonsou Séba Capo Chichi, and Bittereinders leader Francois van der Merwe, ruling that the interests of justice require their continued detention pending trial.
In a judgment delivered on 18 June 2026, the court found there was a significant likelihood that the accused would evade trial if released and that the State had established a prima facie case relating to immigration violations, conspiracy and the alleged facilitation of unlawful border crossings.
Immigration Allegations
The court heard that Kémi Séba, whose legal name is Stellio Gilles Robert Capo Chichi, and his 18-year-old son entered South Africa in November 2025 on three-month visitor visas.
According to the State, both remained in South Africa after their visas expired and were allegedly residing in the country without valid immigration documentation when they were arrested in April 2026.
Alleged Border Operation
At the centre of the State’s case is an allegation that Francois van der Merwe arranged for a private security company to escort the two foreign nationals to the South Africa–Zimbabwe border.
Prosecutors argued that the operation was intended to enable them to cross into Zimbabwe illegally before continuing their onward travel.
The court heard evidence that Van der Merwe allegedly paid R250,000 for the operation and that investigators recovered R68,000 in cash from his vehicle during the arrests.
Court Questions the Explanation
In assessing the evidence, Magistrate Aubrey Mphahlele noted that the accused had not provided a satisfactory explanation for either the purpose of the border trip or the unusually large payment allegedly made for the operation.
The court observed that a legitimate trip from Pretoria to the Zimbabwean border would ordinarily cost only a fraction of R250,000, finding that the amount lent credibility to the State’s version of events.
Asylum Argument Rejected
Séba and Capo Chichi argued that they had applied for asylum following their arrest and that those applications should weigh in favour of their release.
The court rejected that argument, ruling that bail proceedings were not the appropriate forum to determine the validity of asylum claims.
The magistrate further held that an asylum application does not automatically entitle an accused person to release on bail and that those issues would ultimately be decided by the trial court.
Extradition Not Before the Court
A significant portion of the judgment addressed concerns raised by supporters that the criminal proceedings were linked to efforts to extradite Séba to Benin.
The magistrate made it clear that the bail proceedings were not concerned with the merits of any extradition request and that extradition issues would be determined separately.
Risk of Flight
The court ultimately concluded that the central question was whether the accused would stand trial if released.
After considering the evidence, the magistrate found that the alleged border operation, immigration violations, unexplained financial transactions and conduct of the accused collectively pointed to a substantial flight risk.
“The probabilities in this case are that there is a likelihood that the applicants will evade trial if granted bail,” the magistrate ruled.
The bail application was dismissed and all three accused were ordered to remain in custody.
What Happens Next?
The criminal matter will now proceed through the normal court process, with prosecutors expected to continue investigations and finalise additional charges.
At the same time, separate extradition proceedings involving Séba are scheduled to continue before another court on 14 July 2026.
