Meyiwa family demands more arrests in murder case

Family representatives of murdered soccer star, Senzo Meyiwa, say they still believe the five men currently in the dock for his murder are the correct accused before the court, but maintain that more people should also be charged.

Afriforum says it believes the state presented strong enough evidence. This comes as prosecutors closed their case on Friday (25 July). Thereafter, the defence indicated that it will bring an application for the charges against the accused to be dropped.

Advocate Gerrie Nel who represents the Meyiwa family believes more people should be charged.

“I am more confident than ever that the people on the stand are the right ones, the state decided to prosecute. But yes, I still say others must be charged.”

The state’s case saw some witnesses who were inside the house testify. Their version is that two intruders entered the house, and what were their roles? Accused number three, Mthobisi Mncube, was carrying a gun, and accused number two, Bongani Ntanzi, followed him inside.

The state believes accused number one, Muzi Sibiya, and accused number four, Mthokoziseni Maphisa, were outside, while accused number five, Fisokuhle Ntuli, was the man with the getaway car.

This view is also held by the lead investigating officer, Brigadier Bongani Gininda.

Baloyi: “What is your comment?”

Gininda: “It confirms what I was saying when I was trying to establish if there were intruders. This is one of the aspects I looked at. The first responders were told there were people who ran in that direction; this is in addition to the neighbours taking that info. This is info independent of the people in the house; they had no reason to mislead. In addition, DNA taken from the scene excluded DNA taken from people inside the house. It means someone else was there.

“But how were all five men linked to the offence? The High Court in Pretoria heard that among others, it was accused number two, Bongani Ntanzi’s confession that blew the lid and changed the course of police investigations,” Brig Gininda explains.

“When I walked away, the officers said he wanted to say something, and what he said led to the arrangement of the confession. When I read him his rights, he implicated accused 1,3,4 and 5, and mentioned Ms Kelly Khumalo as the person who hired them,” Gininda says.

Gininda told the court that he had requested that Khumalo be charged, but a decision was taken that a further probe be conducted as he answered questions from defence counsel Charles Mnisi.

Mnisi: “Now in terms of testimony you mentioned that Kelly was a kingpin, not so?”

Gininda: Yes, my lord, the evidence collected suggests that she is a trigger point.”

Cell phone records also linked Khumalo to accused number 5, Fisokuhle Ntuli in August and October 2014, prior to the killing. The firearm that was seized from accused number 3 had been linked to the bullet recovered from the crime scene. This was confirmed by multiple ballistics experts who took the stand, including Captain Reta Grobler.

“I was satisfied that the two bullets fired from the same firearm based on the sufficient agreement of class and individual characteristics. After that, I placed the second test bullet on the right-hand side of the microscope and repeated the same process until I was satisfied there was sufficient agreement of class and characteristics. I then proceeded to inform Mangena that I am of the opinion that the exhibit bullet and the test bullet were fired from the same firearm,” Grobler says.

VIDEO | Defence wants all charges dropped

Fast forward after multiple delays, drama and postponements, the state finally wrapped up its case. Advocate Baloyi believes they led strong and credible evidence.

“On that point, my lord that concludes the leading of the evidence of the state’s case. Precisely three years since the state started leading evidence, we formally close our case,” says Baloyi.

The defence will now have its turn, with a possible bite at the witnesses that the state never called.

Baloyi: “The law is clear all witnesses who were not called are at the disposal of the defence. We make all witnesses that haven’t been called available to the disposal of the defence.”

When the case resumes in August, the defence indicated it will apply to have the charges dropped against the accused as advocate Mnisi explains:

“We have instructions to bring an application regarding legal aid and the 174. We propose once a decision is taken on August 6, I request the matter to be postponed to August 7.”

But what are the prospects? Legal Analyst Ulrich Roux explains:

“Certainly, the defence says they did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt by wanting to bring this application for discharge of their client’s charges in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA). Now this clearly states this is a safeguard to prevent the accused person from being convicted of a case, but I do think there is evidence to be answered too.”

The trial is expected to resume 7 August.