PRETORIA — Magistrate Nicca Setshogoe of the Specialised Commercial Crimes Court is set to rule Monday on whether disbarred lawyer Peet Viljoen should be released on bail while facing 400 charges tied to an alleged R27.6 million fraud scheme involving the Johannesburg Property Company.
Viljoen has remained in custody since his arrest at OR Tambo International Airport on June 16, following his deportation from the United States. The bail decision was postponed to August 17 to give Magistrate Setshogoe additional time to review submissions from both the defence and prosecution, after Viljoen last appeared in court on July 24.
The charges span fraud, theft, corruption, forgery and uttering, all connected to the JPC property scheme. Prosecutors have mounted forceful opposition to bail, arguing Viljoen presents a significant flight risk and that his release would undermine the interests of justice.
His defence counsel, Andre Steenkamp, has built the bail application around a single central argument: Viljoen returned to South Africa knowing arrest was certain, which demonstrates he is not a flight risk. “He returned, yet he knew he would be arrested. This is not a man who is a flight risk,” Steenkamp told the court.
The defence proposal sets bail at R200,000, with R150,000 payable immediately and R50,000 drawn from funds on which Viljoen was previously released 16 years ago. Steenkamp also offered that Viljoen would submit to house arrest at his sister’s residence in Olympus, Pretoria, and report daily to police if the court required it.
The circumstances of Viljoen’s deportation are central to the bail record. According to court proceedings, Viljoen and his wife, Mel, had travelled to the United States legally and were lawfully residing there when they were arrested on shop theft allegations. During extradition proceedings before a US judge, Viljoen initially requested voluntary return to South Africa. When the judge declined, he petitioned for deportation, stating he could not endure continued immigration detention.
Prosecutor Van Zyl has challenged that account directly. He cited Viljoen’s public statements on social media declaring he would never return to South Africa as evidence of flight risk, and referenced what he characterised as Viljoen’s openly critical remarks about South Africa, its citizens and government. Viljoen defended those remarks as constitutionally protected speech.
“How he got back is a drama on its own,” Van Zyl told the court, arguing that Viljoen’s conduct since leaving South Africa raised troubling questions about his reliability. The prosecution’s position is that common sense dictates his release would not serve the interests of justice.
By contrast, Steenkamp argued that the charges themselves, accumulated over a 16-year period, should not justify indefinite pre-trial detention. He questioned whether Viljoen should remain incarcerated until new proceedings commence, given that extended timeline.
Monday’s ruling will test how the court weighs flight risk against the presumption of innocence in a complex, long-running fraud matter. Whether the conditions Steenkamp proposed are sufficient to satisfy Magistrate Setshogoe’s assessment of the prosecution’s concerns remains the open question.