Moroadi Cholota’s Extradition Case Sent Back to Free State High Court

• The Constitutional Court ruled that Moroadi Cholota’s extradition from the US was unlawful due to procedural errors
• The court clarified that extradition requests must come from the national executive, and not the NPA
• The court set aside the High Court’s decision to decline jurisdiction and referred the matter back to the Free State High Court

Justin Williams, a journalist at Briefly News since 2024, covers South Africa’s current affairs. Before joining Briefly News, he served as a writer and chief editor at Right for Education Africa’s South African chapter.

FREE STATE - The Constitutional Court has ruled that Moroadi Cholota’s extradition from the United States was unlawful. The court found that the Free State High Court erred in refusing to hear her criminal case on that ground alone.

Court erred in refusing to hear criminal case

In a judgment handed down on Friday, 23 January 2026, the court confirmed that Cholota’s extradition did not comply with the law because it was carried out by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) instead of the national executive. The court said this procedural defect did not automatically strip the High Court of its power to try the matter. Cholota is among 18 accused in the R255 million asbestos corruption case involving former Free State Premier Ace Magashule.

Read also

SA weighs in as EFF says state wants to ‘make an example’ of Malema

The NPA approached the Constitutional Court after the Bloemfontein High Court ruled in June 2025 that it could not exercise jurisdiction because Cholota’s extradition had been requested by the wrong state authority. The Constitutional Court was asked to clarify who has the authority to request extraditions from foreign states and whether the High Court was correct to halt the prosecution.

NPA’s powers limited to prosecutorial processes

The court ruled that extradition requests to foreign governments fall within the domain of the national executive, as they involve international relations and diplomatic considerations. It said the NPA’s powers are limited to prosecutorial processes and domestic aspects of extradition and do not extend to acting on South Africa’s behalf at a state-to-state level.

At the same time, the court criticised the manner in which Cholota’s legal team raised the issue of unlawful extradition. It found that the argument was introduced during closing submissions, denying the state an opportunity to respond. This, the court said, breached the state’s procedural rights under the Criminal Procedure Act. As a result, the Constitutional Court set aside the High Court’s decision to decline jurisdiction and referred the matter back to the Free State High Court to continue with the case.

Read also

Black Coffee reacts as social media links ConCourt ruling to his ongoing divorce battle

Court rules antenuptial contracts invalid after paying lobola

In another article, Briefly News reported that the Constitutional Court delivered a landmark ruling in favour of customary marriages entered into before antenuptial contracts are signed.

The court ruled that customary marriages automatically fall under the community of property if an antenuptial contract is signed after the fact. South Africans debated the ruling, as some praised the courts for empowering women and others accused it of stripping away tradition.

Source: Briefly News