Ndodana Tshuma’s Firearm Case Postponed After Lawyer Raises Concerns Over Guilty Plea

Ndodana Tshuma’s attempt to finalise a plea agreement in his Johannesburg firearm possession case has hit a snag after questions emerged over whether he remembers signing the document.

Tshuma appeared before the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, where proceedings were postponed to 7 December 2026 to allow him and his legal team more time to resolve outstanding issues surrounding the Section 105 plea agreement.

His lawyer, Chrispen Machingura, said the court was still working to establish whether the facts presented in support of the proposed guilty plea were accurate and understood by his client.

Also Read: Ndodana Tshuma Pleads Guilty To Four Charges Ahead Of UK Extradition Battle 

Lawyer Questions Whether Tshuma Remembers Signing Agreement

Speaking to reporters outside court, Machingura explained that the plea agreement had undergone several amendments, making further consultation necessary before the process could be completed.

He said the court had encountered inconsistencies while checking the facts that would form the basis of a conviction.

Machingura also revealed that Tshuma had indicated that he could not remember signing the agreement, raising concerns about proceeding with a guilty plea under those circumstances.

The lawyer said the defence did not want Tshuma to admit to allegations without being certain that he understood and recalled the facts supporting the plea.

“After the amendment has been effected, we still have to go through the process of verifying those facts to support the plea that is there, so that we can have a conviction in the end. An agreement is there, yes, but the verification of it is what is going through court now,” he said.

Case Could Proceed To Trial

Machingura warned that if the outstanding issues cannot be resolved, the court may have to enter a not guilty plea, resulting in the matter proceeding to trial.

He questioned the basis for convicting someone who says they cannot remember signing the document or the facts contained in it.

“When you have an accused person saying I don’t remember something, if you proceed with a guilty plea, are you convicting him on what he knows or what he doesn’t know? That’s the dilemma that the court is facing now,” he said.

He added:

“If he says he does not remember, eventually the court might be forced to enter a plea of not guilty, then go to trial. That’s where we are”.

The matter will return to court on 7 December 2026.