6 distribution charge against him. The appellant could decide thereafter what his response to the charge would be. [21] The appellant was entitled to deal in his plea statement with only the facts charged and to decline to disclose or admit anything more in respect of criminal conduct committed by him but not alleged in the charge. Moreover, it was not for the appellant to attempt to state in his plea statement the charge that he thought the State was preferring against him or to plead to a non-existent charge, on the basis of what he believed the State was prosecuting him for. Ms Ryan and Mr Maluleke were agreed that what the appellant said in his plea statement regarding distribution could not cure the irregularity in the proceedings and the conviction and sentence in respect of the distribution fell to be set aside. [22] It is clear from the CPA that a charge must be in writing. The charge against an accused is identified in the charge sheet.1 It is at the instance of the State that the accused is brought into court to answer criminal charges preferred against him by the State. Therefore, the charges must be put by the prosecutor and not anyone else.2 [23] In S v Sithole and Others,3 the court stated at 230 c-d: ‘To convict an accused on a charge he was not requested to plead to is in my view such a departure from the rules and principles governing the conduct of criminal proceedings that it cannot be countenanced. It is further a fundamental right in terms s 35(3)(a) of our Constitution...that an accused has a right to a fair trial which includes the right to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it.’ [24] In Sithole there were multiple charges. Some were put to the accused and some were not. The accused did not plead to the charges that were not put. Nevertheless, the 1 2 3 S v Mandlazi GP case no A765/2016, 22 May 2018 at [11]. S v ZW 2015 (2) SACR 483 ECG at [41(c)]. S v Sithole and Others 1999 (1) SACR 227 T(‘Sithole’).