A Cape Town attorney who has spent years campaigning for safer, more dignified court security measures said a recent killing inside Wynberg Magistrates’ Court could have been prevented—if the court had simply followed a High Court order issued nearly five years ago.
Dingalomoyo Chintso, 49, was shot dead inside the court while waiting to be called up for his murder and possession of an unlicensed firearm case on 8 April 2025.
A week later, 35-year-old Shireen Matthews from Strandfontein appeared in the very court, after being accused of orchestrating the gang hit.
Matthews has been charged with premeditated murder.
Attorney Ben Mathewson, known for challenging invasive body search procedures in Western Cape magistrates’ courts, believes the continued refusal to implement electronic screening devices has contributed to unnecessary conflict inside and outside the Wynberg court building.
“In 2020, the Western Cape High Court ordered that searches be conducted using handheld scanners or other electronic apparatus, not by hand,” said Matthewson.
“Wynberg refused to comply. And now we’re seeing the consequences.”
Mathewson’s legal battle began in earnest when he launched an application to the Western Cape High Court in 2020, targeting courts across the province—including Cape Town, Bellville, Blue Downs, Khayelitsha, Kuils River, Paarl, and Stellenbosch.
The respondents also included the regional head of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, a private security service provider, and the director of legal administration in the Western Cape.
In an order granted by Justice Le Grange on 30 June 2020, the court ruled that all searches must adhere to the Control of Access to Public Premises and Vehicles Act (Act 53 of 1985).
The order specifically prohibits manual body searches unless carried out in a respectful and lawful manner using electronic devices only.
“It’s about dignity. It’s about safety. And it’s about doing things the right way,” Mathewson said.
The judgment made clear that no member of the public may be physically searched by hand unless proper procedures—particularly the use of scanners—were followed.
Furthermore, if a person refuses to cooperate with a scanner search, they may be denied access to the premises. In cases where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, court security is directed to involve the South African Police Service.
Mathewson pointed to several other courts that have since adopted electronic scanners as a standard procedure—including Cape Town Magistrates’ Court and Beaufort West—as examples of success.
“Look at Cape Town Court. Now they use scanners—you hardly hear of incidents there. People are more respectful because they’re being treated respectfully,” he said.
The attorney also noted that scanners are both cost-effective and easier to maintain than constant manual searching.
“It’s simple. If a scanner isn’t working, replace it. And if there’s any suspicion of drugs or weapons, you call the police. That’s their job—not to have security guards putting hands on people.”
Mathewson stressed the importance of balancing court security with the personal dignity of those required to attend proceedings.
“Courts aren’t optional. If you’ve got a subpoena or are summoned, you have to be there. But no one should have to submit their dignity to be searched by hand.
“Courts aren't optional for staff, so their safety should be of top priority, that's what the order granted, all that should have happened was for it to be followed.”
Weekend Argus