Inside the DJ Warras Murder Bail Hearing: Why Victor Mthethwa Majola’s Phone, Firearm, and Digital Trail Matter

Murder-accused Victor Mthethwa Majola appeared before the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court in the premeditated murder case of DJ Warrick “Warras” Stock, as investigators revealed alleged surveillance evidence and confirmed plans to arrest a close associate. The bail hearing exposed critical digital and forensic issues central to the state’s case.

A review of proceedings at the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court shows a bail hearing that quickly evolved into a detailed examination of alleged premeditation in the murder of media personality Warrick Stock, popularly known as DJ Warras.

The investigating officer told the court that Victor Mthethwa Majola was found in possession of photographed documents containing DJ Warras’ vehicle registration number, home address, and other personal identifiers. In bail applications involving violent crime, especially murder, such material is often presented by the state as evidence of planning rather than coincidence.

Majola, who is accused of masterminding the killing, maintains his innocence. According to testimony referenced during the hearing, he claims to be a businessman who owns three taxis, has 30 cattle in his rural homestead, and earns approximately R20,000 per month. He further told the court he is unmarried and the sole provider for 12 children aged between three and 21, factors his defence argues reduce any risk of absconding.

The most significant development from the bail hearing was the investigating officer’s disclosure that police intend to arrest Majola’s girlfriend. This statement strongly suggests investigators believe she may have played a role, either knowingly or unknowingly, in events surrounding the murder.

Majola insists that digital evidence will ultimately vindicate him. In a statement attributed to him and reported by News Live SA, he told the court:

“I am confident that the state will find nothing linking me to this crime. The cellphone records, if any, will vindicate me by showing my movements and whereabouts on the day of the alleged crime.”

He further claimed that at the time of the murder, he was in Soweto, repairing his car, and that his girlfriend sent him money, with their communication allegedly documented via SMS. From an analytical standpoint, this places cellphone metadata, tower pings, timestamps, and financial transaction logs at the centre of the case. Such evidence is often decisive, particularly where competing alibis exist.

Public reaction to the bail proceedings has been intense. On X, some users questioned why footage related to the killing has not been released. One user wrote: “They are refusing to release the DJ Warras footage for a reason.” Others argued that possession of a licensed firearm does not automatically imply criminal intent, questioning whether the accused is being unfairly judged.

From a legal analysis perspective, delayed release of footage is common in cases where additional arrests are anticipated, as premature disclosure can compromise investigations. The investigating officer’s statement regarding an imminent arrest lends weight to this interpretation.

What remains clear is that the murder of DJ Warras continues to resonate deeply with the public, with many demanding accountability without procedural shortcuts. As one user noted, justice must be rooted in evidence, not speculation.