This report underscores the vital role of procedural rigor, reminding us that digital evidence is only as credible as its documented chain of custody. It highlights how strict authentication requirements serve as a necessary safeguard for the rule of law against the risks of evidentiary manipulation.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
High-profile attempted murder trial continues - 21 July 2026
Added:Thank you my lord. Um I am ready with the first witness. It's number six on the list. Mr. Bethwell.
I must apologize. I've been so busy with other arrangements that I assumed that the court order would um be prompt and in attendance.
So I see no court order here. So I don't know what indeed.
Well said, my lord. The other problem that I have is I can't see your lordship's face due to this one camera.
Um, so I would ask this lady, not now once we adjourn that um the camera just being moved >> to an appropriate spot.
Yes, please.
The bar is now um assumed the role of court order.
Yes.
Can you move?
Lord, may I please just approach my client?
No, please.
Is that something?
Maybe in the future to assist us with dealing with this issue brought up 15 minutes before court commences. I think it would just be much more convenient for everybody.
Yes. Thank you, my lord.
>> My lord, I call my first witness, Mr. Zam is number six on the list and he is the complainant in count number um number number six.
He will obviously also testify about other attempted murder counts with regard to the matter.
will recall that yesterday the defense were so generous as to offer admissions.
Um, and we drafted those admissions last night and printed it and prepared it.
Apparently, it's not good enough for them. So, they asked that it be stand stood down until after tea. So, we will deal with that later.
Yes.
This witness will prefer to testify in Zulu.
And this witness also indicated to us during consultations that he does not have an objection of um being informed and recorded. I must however however um already place it now on record that the majority of the witnesses with whom we um consulted um has a serious problem of being recorded or filmed in any way or named even. So um I'm just placing that on record already. I will alert the court every time before testifies as to the Lord, before we commence this witness, I notice that the witness has certain documents in his possession that he is looking at. May I request that the witness not be assisted with any documentation unless properly placed before.
>> My lord, it's probably a copy of his statement, but I will I will just ask him to put it away.
My lord, we do not know whe statement was made when it was fresh in his memory.
>> Yes, >> that's correct, madam.
between the commission and >> ask you to >> has that statement been disclosed to any objection to the witness having my concern witness when the proper basis has been laid and for me refreshment not to basically pestify because it in my respectful submission it infringes the to cross examination to a certain extent. So that is my concern.
>> Mr. Lord, may I please the court? The law is quite simple. Um you are not entitled to your statement evidence. It infringes the rule against giving evidence in barba. Um and and that is as old as as time memorial when it comes to you need to evidence based on your recollection of what has transpired at the bat. You cannot refer to a statement that you made before it infringes the rule that says you need to give evidence. Please >> I confirm with the sentiments that has been expressed >> as the court please doesn't affect me but the the only time the witness would obviously h have the latitude of h refreshing his mind is before he gets into the stand and that the prosecutor should have done before to say do you want to read your statement and at that time he would have been allowed But not to have the statement as he's busy testifying as the courtes I was not um going to lead this witness with his statement in hand. So that was never my intention. So I will just ask that the statement be put away. He doesn't need the statement. He can just just tell his story.
If it becomes necessary and you have to Bethwell.
That's correct.
Post security.
medium.
Medium media.
Is the first time evidence?
>> Yes, correct.
That's correct. When you come to a court of law, you are required to take That's correct.
>> Yes.
I swear that the evidence that I shall give the truth.
questions relating to an incident which you must listen carefully to our questions and answer them.
If there's anything at all, remember that you enjoy the right That process is called examination.
to ask questions related to Understood. Similarly, you must listen carefully to the questions that are the right answer. Answer them to the best of those. Please remember that you enjoy the right to say to council. Please repeat the question to so that Understood. Once that process by all of the country asking questions.
There may be aspects.
You can't do I think I do understand the procedure.
>> Mike people.
Please Understood.
The next thing that wants to draw your attention to is that you must give your evidence in small sections so as to allow the interpreter to interpret whatever you are saying for the abused person.
And second the opportunity to write down exactly what you are saying.
Not only was >> understood for whatever reason you want to go to the bathroom you are feeling tired you want to stop for a few moment please inform The court might be easy.
invite you to take a seat.
Yes, my I want to sit down. I want to rest.
Yes, my lord.
>> This is a this is a it's a plague.
>> Yes.
Yes.
Before my friend's evidence, there was an issue brought to my attention to one of the state witnesses were present through the duration of what was yesterday. My confirm.
Yes, my lord. No witnesses except for the investigating officer obviously, but my lord, um it was brought to my attention yesterday and I must say that I've taken it sternly and um there must have been a miscommunication between me and the witness because it was explained before.
So no witnesses um should be in court now.
Is there anyone in the gallery seated here in this case?
No one >> any credit is suffered by any part because it was just preceded yesterday.
>> Thank you. Thank you my lord. Um is it clear is it correct so that you um on the 10th of August 2022 were employed by the appoint as a security officer.
>> That's correct. That's true.
>> Where were you stationed or based that night?
I was my post was at car park outside >> golf estate >> outside G estate.
Where is this Gulf estate situated?
is under Ptoria at the place known by Centuro.
>> At that stage on the 10th of August 2022, how long have you been working for Bit Security?
August 2022.
>> Let me put it this way. Before I work there, I was from other sides.
Five months in >> I think there I was there for five months approximately >> at the Gulf Estate.
>> At Golf Estate.
>> Yes.
Exactly where on the golf estate were you taking your post to God that night?
car parking >> at car park. The car park is at a paving.
>> Let me put it this way. So if one would stand outside the golf estate looking towards the street section on which side would you say were you of the entrance to the golf estate?
I was at the side at the left hand side of the the building >> when you are exiting the building. It's on the left hand side.
>> Were you um alone on guard there at that point?
or 91.
We were two in that post, but the other one was already taken somewhere because around 7:00 or 9:00 or 11:00 they will separate us.
They will take another person to another post.
>> Do you know Mr. >> Yes, I know.
Francis, my lord. I'm referring to witness number four on the list.
Can you tell the court where was he later that evening?
Okay.
>> Yes.
I'm not working with Mazuko at the post.
He's working as a controller.
>> Yeah.
>> In the day in question, he came to me to provide me with a twoway radio.
Can you now tell the court in your own words what transpired that evening that made you to come and testify here today?
then I will start this way.
If I'm thinking about that that incident, it's like it happened yesterday.
>> Okay.
Ferrari.
>> In the question, there arrived an a red Ferrari.
>> What time would you say was that? More or less.
>> 25 to 11. It was around 25 to 11.
>> What time of day was it?
>> It was at night.
>> Okay.
Then after that Ferrari arrived there, it was followed by a Golf.
>> White >> Golf Seven.
>> Golf 7.
>> White Golf Seven.
>> Yeah.
Then at the time when these motor vehicles arrived there, I was still with Mr. Tama because he was there to give me or provide me with a two men's radio so that we can able to communicate with the control or with the control room.
Whilst we were standing there looking then we saw a white BMW passing.
as if there were people who were looking for something >> and the window of that BMW was lowered down a bit from the left hand side >> and immediately when it was by the robot it made a Uturn.
>> Yes.
Then it came and pack where at at a car park where there was a Ferrari and a Golf 7 and then two main people are lighted from that motor vehicle.
When they are lighted, they do out their AK-47s.
>> Then they saw that I've spotted them or saw them and then I was missed by the first bullet.
Then said to me, "Let's run away.
My lord, I just need to place on record that the witness is clearly um emotional at the moment. So um I can note that he is reliving the moment. Um um we'll just ask him if he is ready to proceed and Yes, we pull each other myself and then I managed to pull Mazibu behind a tree that is there at the golf course.
Yeah. And then there there's something like a structure which is built on a concrete. And then there there are flowers that are planted in that a structure.
Then I stood there and to look what was happening or the incident of what was transpiring that day.
They continued shooting at us.
They were now they were shooting but they were not shooting at our direction.
They were shooting at the golf seven and then they shoot at the golf and they smash the window.
Then scream at me and he said utter this way that we can't die while you are in the position of a firearm.
>> Then I pulled up my firearm.
>> Then I c it.
>> Then I fired some shots.
>> Yes, I fired some shots.
Then I shoot five rounds of bullets.
>> Then I peep a bit.
>> They were standing there. My brothers.
>> Okay.
Then I can I can spot I can see that one of them has been injured a bit.
when he ran into a motor vehicle, that person then he entered that motor vehicle through a window and at that time I was firing shot or I was pushing him with bullets.
I pushed him with bullets. pushed him and the other one was shooting but shooting at the the the occupants who were inside that motor vehicle.
>> The one of them I don't know who is that person.
>> Then he said die you dog.
>> Then he started shooting again.
And then the other one who was inside the motor vehicle then he tried to get out of the motor vehicle. Then he went up to the robots.
Then I said to him come back because now when you are going that direction >> you do not have any protection.
Then I was shooting on a brrawn position lying on my stomach and the the the occupants who were inside that motor vehicle then then they come out of that motor vehicle and they run scattered and I saw the other one jumping the boom gate.
>> The one who was wearing a white shirt BMW also request that witness goes a little bit slower.
That's what concerns me >> because I'm not in your comfort.
understand what this makes me angry because now this thing could have long finished.
I can understand Amazing.
Now just tell us >> before you continue Mr. I just want to take you one step back and I don't want to um interrupt your train of thought, but can you just tell where you said that you pushed this person with bullets and that you wounded him? Can you tell the court? And then you said that he jumped into the vehicle. To which vehicle are you referring?
Yeah, I pushed him in the motiv now before you continue in this process of shots being fired by the people from BMW. We will get to that how many there were. But um what happened to the people um at the Ferrari and at the Gulf?
Okay.
They ran inside or they ran inside a golf estate up to that point. Um, can you tell the court how many occupants of the BMW did you observe?
Would that include the driver?
>> Driver.
>> Yes, I'm including the driver.
>> Previously, you referred to more than one what you call an AK-47. Can you tell the court um how many AK-47s did you observe?
AK47K >> AKs. There were three AKs 47.
>> Did you know from before that day how a AK-47 look?
Yes, I know.
When you were firing your shots from what you call a a supine position, you know, I was lying down in your stomach.
Um, what was Mr. Mazibu's position.
Where was he in relation to where he was shooting?
was was also lying on a position.
You may continue. So um or maybe just before you continue just another question and that is you said someone said die you dog.
>> Yes.
>> Who said that in what language?
or to those people who were shooting at us.
One of the one of them uttered those words even though I cannot point that person but he was saying that in is from where you were positioned.
What would you say is the distance between you and the BMW where it came to a standstill and the shut the the firing ensued?
Even though I had not I did not have a measuring tape with me.
Okay.
>> Yes. I'm sorry to can point out this that woman who's sitting here on on this planet that woman who's wearing a the last one that other woman just from the distance where I'm testifying to that woman who's sitting there.
Wow, it's not too far from me.
>> I I would agree, my lord.
>> You may continue. How did the incident further unfold?
>> I'm sorry, mate. I there's something that he mentioned before this end because you were interjected where by he was saying h saw someone who was running and then to according to him he saw tweet that he was injured on was shot on the stomach because he managed to spotted his intestine Yeah.
>> Indeed, my lord. Thank you.
Southport.
All right.
inside.
See if they're coming.
Witnessed one of the one of the occupants of the motor vehicle and that you saw his intestines. Fore!
Foreign! Foreign!
The person who was wounded is the one who was from the Gulf, but I'm not sure about the occupants of the BMW, whether they were injured or not.
Can you tell the court um that at that night during the incident, did you know any of the um occupants of the Golf and the Ferrari, in other words, the victims that were shot at, did you know any of them from before the incident?
No, I did not know that months because I was there only for 5 months.
How would you describe the visibility um of the scene during the shooting?
The lights who are in that place were not illuminating very well.
What provided the lights that you're talking about? What if you say the lights? What what kind of lights were was it?
Alexand you want me to describe the lights who are installed there. They are not tall like the pole lights or normally call them the Apollos. They a bit shorter than the Apollos though they were not lighting very well or illuminating very well.
Was it uh was it electric lights? Was it in other words um evening like the lights that you would find in the street or whatever in the evening? Is that what what you're talking about?
um think that I'm talking about the lights who are installed at the car park.
You mentioned previously in your evidence that the occupants of the Ferrari and the Golf, you saw them running away. Do you remember saying that?
That's correct.
>> Tell the court at what stage did you see them lighting out of these two motor vehicles? Was it at what stage in relation to the arrival of the BMW? Was it before the BMW arrived or just did just tell that to us?
Okay.
Okay.
They were just standing outside the golf having some discussions even though I I won't tell what they were discussing about. Maybe they were discussing about where they visited they enjoy it or not but I'm not sure what they were discussing about.
>> Yes. So explain to the court was that then was that now before or after the BMW arrived?
They better.
>> It was after the arrival of the BMW.
>> Now listen. So you now you stand in guard. You see these two motor vehicles arrive.
>> That's the Ferrari and the Golf.
>> Yes.
>> So um don't go to the where the BMW now arrives. What did the occupants do when they arrived there? They parked now outside the the golf estate at the entrance. What did they do there?
Okay.
>> And the first thing the one who was inside the Ferrari al lighted from the the Ferrari and he approached the occupants of the golf or went to them.
>> Yes.
Then that's when this BMW arrives. This BMW of miracles.
was there stationary for about approximately 3 minutes.
>> The what?
>> The BMW >> maybe 3 seconds.
>> I would say 3 seconds.
>> Yeah. 3 seconds. After 3 seconds then from there now they started shooting >> this way. Now we refuge oursel.
>> Great. Right.
Can you tell the court um whether when you were firing shots um whether you struck any of the motor vehicles or any of the occupants there? Can you just tell the Yes, I stuck the be very much.
>> Is that it?
>> Okay.
Then I'll say that BMW know I strike the mirror, strike the windows, strike the doors.
What caliber firearm did you use that night?
>> I was using sizzle mass.
Sorry, what? Sizzle mass.
>> What caliber? Caliber.
Mm. It was a 9 mm.
>> Short parabolum or short gun?
>> Just a 9 mm. But sel mass is just a 9 mm in a sizzle mass.
Sel mass mass >> sel mass >> sazel mass.
That's the firearm melo that we are using at beat vest. Then we make a sizzle mess. Sizzle mess of the firearm.
>> It's a Turkish firearm.
>> It's made in Turkey.
>> Could you just show us the size of the firearm?
It's 9 mm.
>> This is the size.
>> Just hold up your hands.
>> Say 20 cm. My lord, would you agree?
It's about 20 cm.
>> Thank you.
>> I don't know.
>> I'm not sure.
>> Here's the ruler.
>> The ruler. Okay. You need show uh it's 18 what cm I think >> 18 to 20 cm.
>> 18 18 to 20 cm.
>> Council, are we happy with that?
>> I'm happy. Thank you, my lord.
>> Thank you. Now you can be sure.
>> Do you know the difference between a pistol and a revolver?
>> Yes. Revolver and pistol are different.
So would you how would you describe that gun if you have to refer to a revolver or a pistol?
>> Okay.
>> The other one that I was in pushing with it has a hammer outside.
The hammer is outside, but the revolver has a wheel and it's loading eight rounds.
>> Yes. So, what were you issued with that night?
>> I was I was provided with 9 mm pistol.
>> How many rounds?
El 15 rounds 10.
>> Yes. Loading 15. But at best will be provided with two magazine. The other one is loading 15 rounds. I know 10 >> 10 rounds and the other one is loading 15 rounds >> 10 and five >> magazine.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And 10 >> 10 >> five.
>> Yes.
>> Or the other magazine is loading 10 rounds and the other one five rounds.
>> Yeah.
>> Of which makes 15.
I thought you said there were two magazines.
First one contained 10 rounds and the second one contained the maximum capacity as I understand.
>> Yes by two.
>> Yes, there are two magazines. So the sum total of the ammunition that you possess that evening is equal to 15 >> 15 rounds 15 ammunition.
So then can we understand and take it that in the first magazine you had 10 rounds of life ammunition and in the spare magazine you contain it contained five rounds of life ammunition.
>> You were standing in the car you in possession of 15 rounds of ammunition rounds.
15. That's correct, man.
How many rounds did you fire that evening?
15.
>> It was a fight. It was a fight.
>> Like the wild west.
like the wild west.
>> It was bad situation.
>> AK >> even myself that day I wish I had an AK for >> Mr. Tle, can you tell the court now this these 15 rounds that you were firing um from which position did you fire these 15 rounds?
>> Okay.
Then I was shooting those rounds lying in a prone position >> pointing and bone >> pointing at them.
>> Yes. And where were you lying down? If you say uh in the relation to um the road surface and then you mentioned trees and flowers. So where were you lying down?
>> I was hiding under the tree.
Next to flowers.
Uh >> next to the flower pot in this in this situation where you said that shots were fired in your direction but um it missed you. What was your um what did you become aware of were uh with regard to your life situation?
>> I'm not going to object at this stage.
What is the relevance of this evidence?
You can only present admissible evidence that's relevant to the issues. This with greatest of respect is not relevant to the issues that you have to decide.
>> No, my lord, it's highly relevant. Um so part of the elements of um attempted murder is that the victim must have feared for his life. So um I'm just asking the victim and I don't want to lead him on that.
>> Thank you. The objection is my >> Thank you my lord.
>> Thank you sir. Can you just tell the court how did you feel about your life um situation at that stage?
I did not have a problem that day. But the following day, that's when I start thinking I've been one of the people that we've been buried today.
>> Thank you.
I want to know from you um when you made your statement afterwards. Is it correct? So that um you made more than one statement. That is correct. So statement more than one statement. Okay.
>> That's correct. Yes, that's true.
>> So when you made your first statement at that stage when you related your story, have you then had an opportunity to see the video footage of this incident at that stage?
No, I did not.
But you have then since that incident you've viewed the video footage. Is it correct, sir?
Yes, I did view the video footage.
>> What you saw on the video footage and what you told this court, is it the same thing or not?
Exactly the same.
Now, before we go to the video footage, I just want to touch up on a few aspects. You mentioned that you struck the BMW and you specifically referred to to the side mirror of the BMW. Is it correct?
Look, >> I think uh the evidence that was aduced that was of a mirror, not a side.
>> So, it's incorrect. My respectful sufficient if the prosecutor puts to the witness that his evidence was a side, >> my lord, I've confirmed with my co-consel and he says he's got it as a side mirror.
He's just checking his notes. I'm checking my notes.
>> Yes, my lord. I I have it as a side mirror.
>> My lord, the evidence was clear. I I write down verbatim as far as I can. Um she asked him when you shot that was did you strike anyone of anything? The answer was yes the BMW very well. Um and then my learned friend said that's it.
Question mark I assume. And then the witness answered the mirror, the windows and the doors.
She said mirror. He said struck the window mirror and >> thank you my lord.
>> Clarify.
>> I will I will clarify that my lord. So sir if you say you struck the mirror can you be more specific uh to what or to which mirror you referring?
Facebook.
I will say the side mirror. Remember we are not we were not at the house. We were outside.
You find the the mirror in the house.
Now here we were shooting at a motor vehicle. Let's move on.
>> With the greatest respect, um I think this witness is somehow contemptuous to the legal fraternity. He must give this evidence with respect and honoring the integrity of this profession. The way he is talking I'm taking ser I'm taking serious offense. Why you got your hand in your pocket?
Just go directly to the answer.
Then as I would say when the The motor vehicle was facing at the robot. I would say the left mirror was struck.
Do you know um after the incident whether anything was recovered on the scene with regard to not the fired cartridges but anything else was recovered? I'm not I don't want to to you to answer on hearsay. I want you to say directly from your own experience. Did you witness that anything was seized from the scene? Not the cartridges, anything else.
Yes.
>> What do you know?
>> Things that were found there cover sight mirror.
>> The cover of sight mirror was found there.
like and the pieces of broken windscreen.
>> Where did you see this side mirror?
It was lying on the street.
Do you know from your own personal knowledge what happened to that piece that you saw there lying on the street?
What happened to it that night?
pictures.
>> What I remember is that I went to the bathroom and I took my handset or my cell phone and I took some pictures on the scene.
Can you just repeat that please?
>> Just repeat that please. Yes.
>> I went to the bathroom.
I took my cell phone or handset and I took some pictures.
>> Is that it?
>> Yeah.
Yeah. Yes. That's all the rest the police officers who were there, they are the one who conducted the scene from where you were lying.
And during this incident, tell the court how many people that you see a lighting from the BMW.
BMW.
I saw two that some shots. And the third one also are lighted from that BMW. And I think is the driver after the two has already lighted.
Did you then at some stage after Oh, let me ask you like this. What happened to the BMW then?
After they finish shooting, I hear one from those who were shooting that golf uttering these words. Die dog.
died.
>> After that one uttering those words, they bought inside the motor vehicle and they drove off.
What did you then do?
>> That's when I stood up and then I pet on Mazuko to woke up and it took a while.
Then after that he stood up and he said to me, "You help very much.
like >> yeah after that our manager came and there were lots of people there and there was lot of commotion >> and then the police arrived at the scene >> yes the police officers did arrive Also an ambulance arrived there at the scene to to pick up the security guards of the beach vest because it it was announced that they are dead.
>> Can you tell the court um the did you assist the police in looking for cartridges that came from your firearm that night?
No, that job is for the police officers because now if I can involve myself in that now I'll contaminating the scene.
>> Right, my lord. Um, there is video footage of this scene available and I can see that my learned friend is already getting restless there in the corner. Um, the thing is, my lord, I'm going to present this evidence in terms of section 15 of the electronic communications and transactions act. Um, this witness um will confirm the video footage and I believe that it is reliable and relevant and therefore admissible.
Pardon >> me my lord.
>> Reliable >> and admissible. My lord >> and relevant court please. Thank you. Uh my lord it is my instructions to object at this stage against the advisability of the video evidence. is so that video evidence is generally regarded as real evidence. However, the state still has a duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt the authenticity of the video evidence.
I respectfully submit that it's of significance. One second.
authenticity of the video evidence. No proper basis in my respect for submission. With all due respect to my learned friend for the state has been laid. I submit that we are not even certain where the video evidence region from.
No evidence has been induced with regards to the downloading process.
Lord, it is also my submission that what the state intends to abuse is a mere extract from the complete recording that was allegedly recorded recorded on the lighting question.
My learner friend indicated that she relies on section 15 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002.
Now, more specifically, she yesterday indicated that it would be section 15 read with section 14 of the relevant legislation.
If I look with respect, my lord, at subsection four of the relevant legislation, subsection 4 reads, "The data message made by a person in the ordinary course of business will copy or print out of or extract from such data message certified to be correct by an officer in the service of such person is in a mere production of the relevant footage >> is the subsection for relevant to what is happening before the >> Yes indeed because that's the only section that my learned friend can rely on because my learned friend indicated that she relies on section 15 >> of this particular >> act >> well the subsection one two and three and subsection four would you like me to read >> what does section section 15 say 14 >> 15 state is relying on 15.
>> Yes.
>> Please assist the court in 15 to the court.
>> Court pleases. It's with regards to admisibility and evidential weight of data messages. Subsection one. In any legal proceedings, the rules of evidence must not be applied so as to deny the admisibility of a data message in evidence. sub sub paragraph A on the mere grounds that it's constituted by a data message or B if it if it is the best evidence that the person deducing it could reasonably be expected to obtain on the grounds that it is not in its original form. Subsection two information in the form of a data message must be given due evidential weight. Subsection three in assessing the evidential weight of the data message regard must be had to a the reliability of the manner in which the data message was generated, stored or communicated. The reliability of the manner in which the integrity of the data message was maintained. C the manner in which its originator was identified and D any other relevant factor. And then paragraph three.
Paragraph four. A data message made by a person in the ordinary course of business will copy or print out of or extract from such a data message certified to be correct by an officer in the service of such person is on its mere production in any civil criminal, administrative or disciplinary proceedings.
under any law, the rules of a self regulatory organization or any other law or the common law advisable evidence against any person and rebuttable proof of the facts contained in such record copy, print out or extract.
So it is my submission that at this stage with regards to the evidential weight none of paragraphs A to D any evidence has been deduced with regards to those paragraphs. If I refer the honorable court to state versus Brown, it's a decision from the Western Cape division Cape Town 2016 volume 1 SACR 206 brackets V CC.
And I think the important principle that was followed is that the mere fact that evidence or footage or images is certified or classified as data messages does not mean that the normal law of evidence should not be followed. data messages are not merely admissible without any further ado. So for my learned friend to stand up and say I'm relying on these sections and in terms of this section it's primal fast pro is not correct not in terms of the case. So I respectfully submit that a proper basis all boils down to the proper basis that has not been laid and we don't know where this evidence originate from. I'll leave it further in your house.
Can I just go back to the fire this issue of uh the video footage is never canvased between the parties during the process of three charges.
Uh I don't think it was uh you will I will you will recall that yesterday when I addressed you I indicated that I was only part of a pre-trial on the 26th of February. So, I'm not too certain and I haven't seen the pre-trial notes. Uh I don't think it was specifically addressed.
>> Yeah. But this aspect of the was disclosed to the parties >> to be honest. Uh my lord, it was disclosed to myself yesterday. Um I >> understand that before yesterday the representative one had not had the opportunity to be able to read that.
>> Correct.
>> Yesterday was the first time.
>> Yesterday was the first time I approached my learned friend for the state and she gave me the footage contained on a memory stick and I brought to her attention. However, my learned friend and she will confirm she will speak for herself. She also stated that uh the video footage was disclosed to the earth while attorney Mr. Mashed. However, we did not have until before yesterday possession of the video footage as it pleases you.
>> May it please my lord. I associate myself pretty with the argument raised by council on behalf of accused number one is my respectful submission that at this stage the proceedings no proper basis has been laid for the admissibility of this evidence and that the authenticity of it has not been this is not an aspect that was raised previously at the pre-trial although it has been made available Can I just discover Can I just perhaps ask you >> this video footage was disclosed to the legal representative of number two during the pre not during the pre-trial but during the discovery process.
It was made available to the defense.
And was the aspect of the video footage ever ventilated or dealt with in the course of the pret?
>> No, it was not.
>> Can you perhaps maybe assist the court to indicate is there any why it was not dealt with at that stage.
>> My lord, there was specific agenda provided by the state for the purposes of the treat free tree trial and that is what was dealt with the time.
that obviously the parties that follow the agenda.
Yes indeed sir we did Lord with respect the issue is that there needs to be a proper basis laid first by the state to presenting this evidence for May I please improper for the state to try and introduce evidence without laying a proper basis for not only introducing it but proving the evidence as such. And part of proving evidence such as the evidence at hand means that the state needs to intera deal with the acquisition of such evidence.
The state needs to follow or whoever the expert is that acquired the set evidence needs to follow the required ISO standard.
It needs to be treated as any other evidence. In other words, the state needs to prove to the court that it's authentic.
Follow the chain of evidence.
The expert needs to come and give evidence on a number of issues. In other words, the state needs to present the evidence if they wishes to rely on this evidence of a competent and authorized person that acquired the set evidence originally.
They must establish to this honorable court that there is original footage because as your lordship is well aware in terms of the constitution we are entitled to examine the original footage.
Part of that whole process interpolia is that there needs to be time systems recorded right from the offset. In other words, the expert needs to record the timestamps and there needs to be cross referencing to the timestamps. The identity and uh of the set CCTV footage, the software that was utilized um needs to be proven to this court. The four things to take into account camera views, surrounding footage. My learner 24 number one has already indicated to the honorable court that this is a mere extract that somebody within the states or in the police deem fit to extract for purposes of pres presenting it to court. There needs to be paceration of this evidence. I've dealt with the issue of of the um chain evidence um in law. What cannot take the screen recording such as my learner currently wishes to do and use that to prove the acquisition method.
>> Can I just ask you the comments that were made by the in state versus 1986 volume 4117 where the court held that video footage must be authenticated by someone able to testify that accurately represents the events recorded and has not been edited or altered. Now can I just perhaps maybe hear you if I understand what the doing at this stage.
The state had asked the witness that from what you in fact have testified and you viewed the video footage, what can you say? And he says it's exactly the same.
So I just want to understand uh in respect of that aspect, I'm not certain the state is relying on it, but I'm just Ed of what was stated in that case that if I understand what is what what the state wants to happen is the state wants this witness to look at the video footage and to confirm the authenticity there but it's very easy and first of all let me start off by saying to the court the digital world has long since overtaken what's transpired at the time that runab was decided I think you all was quite aware of We're dealing with AI today.
We're dealing with a whole host of other issues. Those issues has not properly been dealt with by a court of law.
However, Rangabin never took away the proper rules of evidence or the law of evidence etc. Once it's challenged, you need to prove it. This witness cannot um you cannot utilize the video evidence that the state wishes the witness to see as self-corroboration because that is in my mind what the state is trying to do here and self-corroboration as your law should know is wholly impermissible under the law of evidence. We also know already mad and and this issue will be fully ventilated and dealt with down the line that the witness for some reason before he came to give evidence was shown this this video footage which in my respectful view already impeaches his evidence on a number of grounds.
The law is simply the following the law.
If any person wishes to produce evidence before this court whether it is to utilize it um a a witness to corroborate the evidence in short that evidence needs to be proven in the potato board case and I'm sure your law is quite okay with that matter that dealt with expert or opinion evidence and what the witness will say viz v the video footage is to a large extent opinion evidence. It said that the courts must be mindful of the fact that you still need to prove the original evidence and we respectfully submit until such time as the state has proven the authenticity of this evidence. The state cannot rely on a witness to authenticate the evidence. The authentication of the evidence relies in all those issues that I mentioned to your lordship earlier.
That's how you authenticate documentary or authenticate digital evidence because what we are dealing with is nothing more than digital evidence. You can't use a layman who's got no qualifications in today's time and age to authenticate evidence.
>> Sorry, I don't I don't know. I haven't had Mr. in that aspect. I'm not certain if her intention is to authenticate the video footage. Perhaps I'll hear her when she addresses the >> I've answered your lordship's issue because your lordship is your wellbeing.
So I'm saying you cannot in today's age use a witness to >> I think it's common cause it's common cause that this witness cannot authenticate the video. You have to obviously call someone to authenticate it. You'll have to identify the originator.
You'll have to then deal with those aspects perhaps. Can I justify before I engage council for the state and in the experience the court has in these matters in other trials that it has presided over.
Generally what happens is when it comes to video footage and for the purposes of allowing the matter to move forward that that video footage is allowed provisionally on the basis that the witness who will testify about it can identify whatever is in that video footage and thereafter the state shall proceed to authenticate and in the absence of authentication of that video it will then be regarded as a non starter >> I respectfully submit my lord I'm going to object to that process too you can only do that if you utilize the law of evidence amendment act so are you then saying if I understand the practical implication of the objection is that we then stand the matter down with the evidence of this witness >> and then we proceed to authenticate the video >> in fact that is what was suggested not suggested That's what the SCA ruled when you challenge evidence that it it sort of well not sort of you would go into a trial within a trial.
>> I perhaps also just plead to council to answer my questions crisply and simply I don't want a long expose and an addition to the question. Simple answer is this is what is expected of the state to do.
My answer was quite simply yes, my lord.
That's what I said to the >> Is there anything further that you'd like to add?
>> My lord, um I respectfully submit that under the circumstances um the state has failed to prove the authenticity of this evidence and cannot utilize it for whatever reason. Um I've already raised a second tier objection and that relates to to self corroboration. May I please >> Thank you so much Mr. As the court pleases, man, I concur with my learned colleagues and h if one looks at section 15 uh subsection 3 A2 where I can say C, we will agree that the state has not uh complied with that. And in answering one of the questions that the this honorable court has raised h about how far can this witness h testify in relation to to the video h in relation to the case law that that that the court has mentioned. Uh the simple answer that one can give is that obviously this witness is not an expert and this witness was not at every angle of the video. So there are certain things that could have been depicted by the video that this witness was not aware of and therefore the original video footage would be needed and expert would have to come and >> if I hear if I hear council broad strokes.
The thrust of the objection is that there's no way for council to conclude in the absence of evidence being called that the video footage was authentic that it could not have been doctorred.
That's how I having due regard to the technological advances in the market. Uh council is saying let us proceed with caution. Let's leave that evidence first once we cross that particular area then we can continue that's that's how I understand it is that how you also understand indeed so and the fact that they I've also the one point that I want to make is that yes h disclosure has been made but disclosure has been made as far as h copies >> h but we haven't seen the original video footage Then can I just if I understand the objection that councel have raised it would what I understand trigger a trial within the trial >> to to determine the authenticity of that you're putting >> indeed so because the state would have to call the the originator >> yes >> and and or the expert witness >> and to read all that evidence and for the court to then make a determination thereafter as as to whether the state has been able to successfully prove the authenticity of that video and as to whether that footage can be used during these proceedings and only once the court has ruled there on then can we deal with what is how I understand the position >> that's the court the so >> good um >> broad strokes I think if you if you hear What the court is saying is all the council having a challenge in relation to the evidence of the video footage being led at this stage during the course of the evidence of Mr. clearly without the authenticity of that video footage being dealt with and pronounced upon and to that extent I think council adidam that that particular process is an interlocatory process which needs to be adjudicated upon by the court and to be pronounced >> my lord if I may respond um firstly with regard to trials within a trials it is of course within a court's um discretion whether the court want to hold the trial within the trial, >> right?
>> But I would submit that the court is not bound by specific rules in this regard. Uh trials within the trial the the purpose of a trial within trial is first to determine the admissibility of evidence. Now the state's submission is that this evidence is relevant and therefore it is admissible.
I think I think if I just understand it and just correct I think the challenge that council have is not so much about the footage itself.
What they are saying how do we really honestly genuinely that the footage that the state is attempting to leave is in fact authentic and genuine.
>> Yes.
>> That it has not been docked. It has not been subjected to artificial intelligence. That various things appear that appear on the video footage perhaps could have been subsequently added there on to build a case on the side of the state. That's that's how I understand the state to say and essentially what this what the council are saying is that for the state to then prove the authenticity of that particular video footage >> and the state intends to do that my lord um if if your lordship will have regard to my section 150 address >> I refer if I refer specifically to the evidence of Mr. FE who was witness number 15 on the list and then that of Mr. Kring who is um also on the list if I can just quickly get to his name but he is indeed um the custodian of this evidence and he will come and testify as to the authenticity of it and Mr. um Willid as to um how it was preserved afterwards.
>> So So can I just ask you Mr. You heard when the court engaged one of the council I think when I engaged Mr. that if if I understood what the state is intending to do at this stage and that is for for practical reasons due to the fact that this witness is already testifying and to prevent him being his evidence having to stand down and being recalled at a later stage.
>> Yes.
>> If I understand the state intends for asking that evidence be accepted on the provisionally and that the authentication of that evidence will come in due course. Is that what I understand the state is intending?
>> That is indeed so my lord and and >> because that's what I understood in the section 150.
>> Yes indeed. So my lord, I just um also want to refer the court um to two specific um decisions uh where the sea had already pronounced on real evidence which is what we're dealing with here. Um in the first instance my lord and I I know this court is well aware of these decisions.
Mlongwa 2010 brackets 2 sacr 419 sea decision and I refer the the court to specifically page 427 B tog where the court made the following remark.
In any event, it need not be established that the original footage was used because the purpose of introducing the video footage into evidence was to identify the scene where the robbery took place to enable the witness to identify the robbers which is not going to happen here and for inspector Nudia who was did the facial recognition which is also not applicable here to make the facial comparisons. As I have already indicated, the video footage of the robbery constitutes real evidence as it was taken from the surveillance cameras installed at the bank. Now, the key here is surveillance cameras. So, I'm relying here on surveillance cameras under the custodianship of Bitfest Pratilla Coin.
The recording was made without any human intervention. It is merely record and store stored onto the hard drive of this of the camera systems and that the state will prove and I I I that was my intention also to have this witness look at the video footage and and if he sees himself there, yes, that's me or yes, that is the motor vehicle that I've been testifying about.
In other words, to corroborate his evidence. It is in law. It's it's allowed. How else am I going to prove the crime scene? It is a silent witness that speaks for itself. This witness testified that I made a statement before I saw the video footage. And that statement is available to the defense.
That statement was made on the 11th of August, the next day when he haven't seen the video footage. And in that is already the reliability of firstly his version visav the video footage. But my lord, I also want to refer your lordship to the dosantos matter 20102 sacr again 382 brackets SCA where the surveillance tapes and the cell phone recordings were used to corroborate the evidence of two state witnesses. So this is already established in law. My Lord, there's another decision which I if the court can give me a moment. I see it's almost 1:00. There's a decision that was decided in this division where um it the case was about the um and I'm sorry to say this, the drunken judge that was caught on video footage.
And in that case the court also had to decide whether a a trial within a trial was necessary or not. Um so I will get that um I will get that um decision for this court if we adjourn for the lunchtime to bring it to court.
It's it's not >> this court it's not a must that this court must have a trial within trial now. And if I understand what the state intends doing, the state intends asking this witness to identify the scene of crime on that particular evening and perhaps to identify himself on that video. And the authenticity of the video footage is going to be dealt with in due course by recording of various witnesses.
That is correct sir.
>> If I understand it that in the event that the state fails to do that then if I understand it correctly in the law that video footage is a non-starter and needs to be discarded from the record.
>> That is correct sort.
>> All right.
So can I just ask you the reason as to why you want to the video footage of this witness at this junction and not call the authentication witnesses first.
Just help me with that.
>> Lord, um this witness um was intro in introduces the crime scene to this court and explained what happened.
So for the state this was a logical way to present its case first through this witness you'd like to say >> that that's a thing can I just ask you sir Go.
>> If I just understand the bigger picture that that is unfolding itself before the court is that the state is wanting to look the evidence of this witness going to identify the crime scene and for him to deal with that aspect to identify himself. And the state is saying that when it comes to the authentication of this particular video footage, here's the name of the witnesses of the state intense court and we shall need that evidence during the course of the tribe.
If the state fails to do that, then it's common cause that the state cannot rely upon video footage.
Can I just perhaps inquire what prejudice, if any, suffered if at this stage For practical purposes, the state is allowed to leave the evidence of the witness so that his evidence can be finalized and it doesn't have to come back to publish and then we proceed with the authentication of that video footage in due course. So that it allows for the smooth flow of the evidence without unnecessarily stopping it here dealing with this aspect and then calling this witness back.
practically what what is your >> uh my respectful submission is that uh the evidence that the defense objects to with regards to the admisibility will then already be showed to this report. It will already be on record. It can very well contaminate the record and to at the later stage decide that this evidence that we provisionally allow is now disregarded. I think with great respect my submission is is not appropriate not in terms of the law.
That is why there is a mechanism such as a trial within a trial where this evidence will be sealed and if it if the evidence is found to be admissible it can very well be transferred to the main trial.
I submit my letter friend relying on section 15 of the relevant legislation.
She conceds that it's a data image.
State versus Brown is very clear.
Data images and data messages are dealt with as documents and not real evidence.
So if we rely on this particular legislation then we then the authenticity as well as the originality has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt before it can be admitted.
>> And the challenge if I understand number one has that the horse could have bolted already.
>> If the authenticity is not dealt with this court the mind of the court could be contaminated.
>> Correct. That is my sufficient. I cannot take the point any further. I think the point council are raising is that the real possibility of prejudice being suffered to the accused is fairly great.
>> Yes. The other >> far outweighs the real prejudice suffered by the accused far outweighs the practical movement of >> that is correct. Thank you. or even further for my letter friend to tell your lordship what she still will induce is is is irrelevant and inadmissible and the prosecutor's address with great respect to my very able learned friend has absolutely no evidential value that evidence has to be aduced as it pleases your >> Mr. regard the questions that have been asked. Uh is is your view also that there is a reasonable possibility of accusing the two being severely prejudiced in this particular matter the video footage is led without it being properly authenticated.
Yes, I do my lord and I submit as your lordship has a argued that it will contaminate this witness's evidence if it is based on his interpretation of evidence which at a later stage might be found to be inadmissible. It is not my respectful view that it is necessarily so that a trial within a trial needs to be held. That is something which can side but the basis must first be >> the authenticity must first be proved that it needs authentic before it is used.
>> So you are saying that for practical purposes it would be better to stand the evidence of this witness down and then to leave the evidence of the authenticity of the video footage. Uh because I suppose from what I hear one of the complaints also is Mr. Mazu I don't know whe is going to be called >> he's the other security officer. So I suppose his state may also rely on the video footage in respect of that >> and I understand the defense to say it would be practically better to get the question of the authenticity out of the way and then we continue >> absolutely if not hear you now what are your >> may please my lord there's a number of issues that's quite important here that you all need to take opposites on my learning hammers the point it's to identify the crime scene and the witness on it. I was actually quite perplexed and surprised that she never introduced the crime scene photographs or even um a normal sketch plan that that the court would have the benefit of to understand what's going on. She's got that in her back pocket. If she wants the court to see the crime scene or wants the witness to identify himself, she's got that in terms of the law. There's a crime scene investigator that tended the crime scene. We must have drafted a a a sketch plan of the crimes. Photos must have been taken. So she cannot through the back door try and slip the evidence in and say, "Oh, this is what I want to do." The second thing is all these cases she cited to launch was long before the onset of AI and its current use as we know. So those cases with the greatest of respect I would argue has been overtaken by the digital era in which we currently live with the greatest of respect. And if I understand sorry and if I understand the argument on the other number three and four is that the element of prejudice far outweighs the convenience of the >> absolutely but let's say it turns out down the line that there was tampering with this evidence that there was AI introduced or AI generated portions of it or anything like that. How does this court even though I know courts judges sit and supposed to uh to disengage themselves from what's presented but it is so we all human we know what the law says about um for instance eyewitness evidence how fallible it is and it's almost akin to the same situation much more we've already got the prejuditial situation where this was this is oh I've seen it and it's exactly the same it it's it you cannot at this stage deal With the evidence like that, the your lordship of course has the option that we can continue with this witness and cross-examine him and in due course if my learned friend so just wishes to to identify him because she made it very clear on your law's question to identify the crime scene and and the witness.
That's the two reasons why she wants to do it. She can show the witness photographs of himself at the crime scene. That witness can be called back in due course if it's necessary. There's no reason whatsoever my lord at this point based on her submission to your lordship that the evidence of this witness needs to be interrupted. I would respectfully submit to your lordship that we continue with his evidence. We finalize his evidence >> and he can be always recalled.
>> He can always be recalled once the state has proven and they want to say to him then sir is this you and is that the crime? Yes. So be it. it can be recalled because it's for that limited reason that she says for she actually identified two very very limited reasons why she wishes to introduce the evidence of course my lord um I see my learn did not address my second objection and that is the issue of self corroboration because that of course already disqualifies the witness seeing this evidence in this before this but she's she's hooked her up bets if I can say on those two limited reasons I today and she's got an a recourse in that regard.
She's got a docket crime scene investigator to deal with it. I would submit in the interest of this witness, in the interest of matters proceeding that we continue with this witness, we finalize his evidence and if in course he needs to be recalled for the limited reason of identifying a crime scene and himself, we can deal with it at that point. May it please the court.
Indeed, my lord. Indeed the the the witness witnesses every day come to court and is supposed to give evidence viva book evidence on their recollection and that is what we test through cross-examination and and I would respectfully submit Lord if it does come to a point at some later stage the state proves this video and let's say the witness severely contradicts what's there then it can be used at that point in time but at this point I respectfully submit my lord the state should have foreseen this situation. Your lordship will recall yesterday when you asked about evidence being challenged. I made it very clear that all of these issues will be challenged in deals. May I please >> as the court businessman we might not be directly impacted but h it is tight law on how evidence uh should be accused before our courts. Uh, one prejudice that they uh might be suffered is this witness for example might have the benefit of correcting his evidence after having looked at the video and and and that is the prejudice that the accused might suffer. And I'm I'm I'm I'm working along with my colleagues. I'm not directly affected at this stage and or my client is not directly affected at this stage but my client might be directed might be directly affected as the trial goes on and I don't want to leave these issues unattended now and at the later stage it would seem like um I've got a selective uh objections to make and that is why I I have chosen to walk the journey with my my learned colleagues as I think you have indicated that you'd like to take some time to look at some just for practical purposes just engage you. There's a suggestion from council for number three and four that uh the state not leave the evidence of the video footage at this stage and the evidence of the witness until it is properly authenticated and that it continues with the rest of the evidence and the witness be subjected to crossexamination and he can always be called reel at a later date once the video.
Can I just hear you on that?
Uh my lord, I'm of course uh in the court's hands with regard to that. Um I would have prefer to finalize this piece. The only reason why I did not introduce the the crime scene investigation photos is >> in your back pocket >> which I apparently have in my back pocket. I haven't looked. But um the fact is I I'm relying on the best evidence.
>> Yes. And uh I was of the considered opinion that the best evidence in this regard is the video evidence as opposed to photographs that were taken.
>> Just cross the floor and go and sit where you're sitting there. And council are saying we faced with video footage.
We really cannot conclusively say that this video footage is authentic. We cannot vouch for the fact that it has not been timely. If you are able to show us that then we comfortable we can continue and remember it's the duty of this court to ensure at all material times that the accused enjoy the right to a fair trial.
>> I I agree with that.
>> I can tell you the view of the court at this stage is that I've heard the objection and I think for now the objection is going to be sustained.
>> As a court please follow. I'm not going to allow the video footage to be led without the authentication of that video footage being done. So the objection raised by council in respect of the meeting of the video footage at this stage of the proceedings is sustained.
You can decide what you'd like to do.
You can either decide to let the evidence of the witness stand down, call the authentication evidence or alternatively you may then continue the rest of his evidence and you can always recall him at a later stage.
>> I suppose I've already applied my mind to the fact that besides Mr. T, we've also got Mr. Masabu.
>> Yes. And Mr. Siboni.
>> Yes. And I suppose the similar objection is going to be raised at all material times and we're spending valuable time threshing out these particular issues.
So I leave the board in your court but I've already given you the view of the court and I think you must just indicate to us when we do resume as to what is the course of action that the state adopting in respect of this evidence so that we can then take it >> as a court please.
>> Excellent. Is there any other issue that you want to deal with before I take the long agendment?
>> That's fine. So my lord um Ben, I'm not going to bother with the um with the case law of this specific.
>> Yes. Yes. It was state versus M. I won't say the rest of the the the other alphabets in but I think we know which one.
>> Yes. Exactly that one.
>> Yeah. So I think I leave it to you.
>> Thank you my lord. Can we stand down then?
>> Can we stand down to 2:00?
>> We stand down till 2:00. The accused can then have to run. Ladies and gentlemen, you may rise. Thank you.
The um we've heard the court has ruled in respect of the objections raised by council for the video footage. The objection has been sustained. We going to take a the adjournment at this stage until 1400 hours. You are accuse number one, two, and three. You are in custody.
You shall remain in custody number four and five. You're on bail. Your bail is extended until 1400 hours. Comfort see you at $14. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to take the agenda.
for lunch.
There was something that the witness was not comfortable about. Then I said to him that we must address it to court because not discussion confirm.
Yes. The witness confirmed that still under oath to tell the truth.
Okay.
My lord, what I want the court to protect me from is that I've I've realize that the defense when they are talking, they are pointing fingers at me and that makes me uncomfortable.
calls. But after years, >> my lord and when they doing this to me, my lord, I do that triggers flashback on me, my lord. And then previously, my lord, I receive some strange calls, my lord. And that makes me really to abore to hate courts.
>> I suggest what you do is The moment you experience that kind of immediately, please draw your attention.
may I feel obliged as council speaking for myself and my attorney to bring it to the court's attention that we've got one two three four five six cameras facing the defendant and I can for us sitting here and I'm sure my learning princip can speak for himself from our side nobody has pointed a finger at the wicked and I want the record to reflect that because it's important that the record reflects that the conduct that's being complained of by the witness has not happened in this court may please >> from outside I think Mr. ing and um his attorney can speak for themselves.
>> Hence, you would have noted that I indicated to the witness that ever he experiences that he must correct me.
Um my lord, I've got no further questions at this stage. So um what I would ask the court is to warn this witness again for tomorrow after conclusion. Um I suppose my learned friends would want to continue with cross-examination now, but then I will want to recall the witness. Maybe we can do it uh uh under re-examination or something like that. But um yes. So He will stand down until tomorrow.
>> So you just want to understand something.
Are you saying you have no further questions for the witness at this stage?
>> At this stage, my lord.
>> So his examination machine.
>> That is correct, sir. So my lord, >> so that means Mr. Pink can commence his cross examination.
>> That is correct, sir. My lord.
Thank you.
>> Uh just for therapy purposes for >> my lord. I just want to make it clear I'm not abandoning the video.
>> Yes. The court understands that >> we I understand it that the aspect of the video is >> yes >> in respect of his testimony thus far the state has no further questioned that depending on the outcome of the video issue we will have another opportunity to cross examine if so required >> in respect Correct. Thank you. Not going to get another opportunity to go now. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. At the time of the incident at 10th of August 2022. We know now that you were employed by Bitvest Point Security Company. You were based at Centurion Gate. Correct.
August 2022.
That's correct. At the time of the incident, how many years of experience did you have as a security officer?
>> 2003 >> to be a security officer. I studied in 2003.
>> So you were quite experienced at the time 19 years of experience. Would I be correct?
years to to that date. But yes, >> yes, even though I was not aware that I might have 19 years, but yes, I do conceded by your security company. No.
>> You still employed as as a security officer?
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> The reason why you're no longer employed by Bitfest, does it relate to the incident in question or not?
No.
Now, you testified that on the night in question, you had a 9 mm pistol in your possession. You had two magazines, one filled with 10 rounds and one with five.
Yes, correct. That's true.
>> Now, when this firearm is booked out to you, is it booked out on a daily basis?
Okay. As long as I'm reporting for duty, I'll book the firearm.
So is it a specific register that you complete inserting the details of the file before Yes.
>> And that is also relevant to the evolution.
That's correct.
>> What is this register?
>> The name of the book.
>> Correct. Register firearm register.
>> Firearm register of bit.
>> That's correct.
>> What does it make of the ammunition that was booked out to you?
9 mm.
>> Those are the bullets for the 9 mm.
>> There's not a specific name to >> even if I did not take notice of that.
But what I can tell is that those are the ammunition for the 9 mm.
>> So after the incident, did you put the the firearm back?
after the incident.
>> Yes. After the incident. Yes.
>> And your firearm. I take it. If you When did you book it back? After the incident?
Then after the police officers arrived and my manager arrived, they requested that firearm for ballistic. Then I did give back to them.
>> So what you're saying is that your firearm was confiscated by the police officers on the on the scene.
No.
So, did you hand them the firearm?
Sorry. Did you hand them the firearm for these tests you are referring to?
I gave back the firearm to my manager and it was locked back on a safe and then the police took it from there.
>> So who is your manager?
>> My manager was Mr. >> I see. So what you're saying is you you handed your firearm back to Krillin kept it in a lock and handed it to the police for purposes of forensic ballistic.
Yes, I would say so.
>> So, you testified that you fired 15 rounds, 15 shots, correct?
15.
>> Yes, I pushed 15.
So, there must have been 15 spent cartridges on the scene. Do you agree?
That's correct. And even spend bullets.
Correct.
That's correct.
>> Do you know whether the police collected these cartridges in bullets?
Yes, because they arrived they were having some items where they were putting in those cartridges and then I would say some of the bullets they left with the BM MW.
So when the police arrived, all right, let me take you to the incident itself after directly after the incident, the BMW drove away.
BMW.
>> Yes, that's correct. And let me interrupt myself and interpose that do you know what this what the model and uh the series of the BMW the BMW that I'm talking about. No, the people who were shooting.
>> Yes. The shooters.
>> The shooters.
>> They alerted from a sedan. BMW.
>> Yes.
>> You don't know the series of Three series four series.
>> No, that one I I cannot comment. I'm not good.
Now after the BMW occupied by the shooters left the scene, you arrive apart from you and that already on the scene, we arrive next on the scene.
There are police officers because they were called summoned by a control operator.
They were in the company of an ambulance that was supposed to take the people who were dead.
>> Dead.
>> Yes. Who are these people?
It was supposed to be the beat uh security officers that were supposed to die that were supposed to die.
>> Yes.
>> So the ambulance in actual fact come to collect the bodies of the dead people.
Is that what you said?
I would say so.
So did these people die during the shootout?
No, >> no one died.
>> So it's no not related to this incident.
>> It's related.
>> I'll come back to this.
I think there's a misunderstanding um with this witness because um it's definitely not the state's case that there were bodies lying around there. So I think there's really a misunderstanding between the witness and my learned friend. I think he should rephrase the question.
>> My lord, he he spoke about dead bodies during his examination chief as well.
That is also not what was disclosed to us. But uh and I I also did not expect the witness to come up with a version of dead bodies and dead bodies that was were collected and supposed to have been collected. So I'm also in the but this evidence was used during the evidence achieved but I'll come back to this aspect if it please issue.
Now, after the BMW left the scene, did any of your colleagues come to the scene?
I would say that they come as they were asking what really happened. But I would say that they were not inside the scene because the the scene was cordoning off.
They were at the other side of the tin of the scene.
>> The police.
>> Between the time of the incident and BMW that had left the scene and the time that the SAP arrived, what kind of time duration was left?
Wis >> even though I don't remember very well but they did not arrive at the same time >> and you are in no position to tell us or to estimate 5 minutes 10 minutes a half an 20 minutes.
10 minutes.
3 minutes.
>> I can see the defense.
He wants to cut me on time.
He wants to later on question me on time. So I cannot say exactly what time.
>> Sir, I'm not here to catch you up. I'm here to to get the truth from you. Are you hesitant to tell it?
I'm telling you the truth.
Yes, I took an oath before this honorable court.
>> Yes.
>> What I said is the truth.
>> So between the time that the BMW left and the SAPS arrived, your evidence is that no security officer came to the scene.
is coming.
I said my supervisor did arrive but he did not enter at the scene area. He he was standing at the other side of the court off area.
Remember even if my supervisor is my supervisor but the fact is he's a security officer also.
>> Yes. Correct. So who is your supervisor here?
At that time my supervisor was Masaraka.
>> So to recap apart from yourself Mazibuku it was only your supervisor that arrived but he was not on the scene. He was away from the scene.
Yes. And the manager also is Yes. So only the four of you know four >> multif how when we say four how >> yeah the two of you >> yourself arrive as well as correct >> and the police offic you seem not to understand sir Yeah, >> I'm referring to the period before the police arrive.
It was myself and then >> and then after that >> the police arrived. And then after the police arrive also arrive.
>> And before the police now arrived, were there any people driving into the estate and leaving the exiting the estate?
state.
People who were entering, there were people who were entering the premises.
But the people who were already in the premises, they were afraid to go out of the premises as they were shooting out outside.
>> You couldn't go out at that time. Yes, >> because there were guns shot there.
>> Yes. So, if I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you did not restrict access the moment and protected the parking lot the moment that BMW left the scene.
Can you restrict someone to go to his place of residence?
So is the answer? No, you did not.
No matter we cannot restrict someone when he's coming to his place of abroad.
So it was only when the police arrived, at the time that the police arrived that the scene was cordoned off.
That's correct.
>> Now, do you know the name of the police officer that arrived first on the scene?
No, I don't know the name.
that the police request you to point down certain points to them upon their arrival.
like like places like what transpired, where you were lying, firing shots from, where the incident transpired, >> detail of the incident, Yes, they did request me to point out where the incident took place. Indeed, I did point out to them that this is what happened. This is what happened.
Did you point out to them where you were lying firing the shots?
>> Yes.
>> Did you point out the cartridges, spent cartridges emanating from your pistol?
No, I did not because I couldn't differentiate that these are my spend categories or not.
>> Only the ballistic expert will do that that this cartridges were fired from firearm or not. So I I take it that there must have been quite a number of spent cartridges on the scene.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. You testified that the police arriving on the scene collected your spent cartridges.
>> I cannot recall that the witness ever testified that. He never testified that the police collected his spent cartridges. He specifically said he does not know that.
>> My recollection is that he did and I I'm simply coming back to his evidence, but uh I can rephrase the question.
>> Can I just perhaps just find the purpose of this cross examination?
The purpose of the cross examination is to determine what transpired and and you will my lord if I disclose the purpose at this stage. It will render the purpose in a bigger picture fertile because obviously you don't know futile you don't know what the evidence is that the state intends to induce apart from what you were informed of by uh my colleague for the state in terms of 650.
and I think is of utmost importance in the bigger picture. Give me please.
So let me ask you then did the police did you see observe the police collecting your Listen to me very carefully.
>> Yeah, then what I'm saying is that the police officers arrived and now they started picking up the the cartridges. Whether they were picking my cartridges or whoever cartridges, I don't know. That's not my business.
>> I know that my colleague is is in cross examination. The witness has complained that he's been disrespected. H he's been pointed with fingers. My and I'm standing up on the basis that my learn colleague is not really conversant. I am >> and this weakness. What was the term that you used that you didn't like?
>> H issues like the >> what was the word that you used?
>> Listen to me carefully. and he's talking to to to to my colleague, you know, and and this this this these are not comments that we can we can expect to be used in a courtroom. much as he wants to be respected. I'm going to ask this honorable court that he must be warned to respect Leonard colleagues. If he cannot respect my learn colleague, >> he's not going to respect me.
>> In fact, my lord, my instructions are the manner in which the >> one second. Your instructions >> for my attorney.
My instructions are that the manner in which this witness is um responding to and referring to is quite derogatory if one takes into account the vernacular um and the language that's used.
>> What what is his language?
>> Exactly word that you used >> exactly the phrase that is used by the Lord.
>> What is the phrase?
>> Look, I can't repeat it. I'm not suing I I is your law a favor.
>> But let me let me you've received instructions from your attorney that's complaining that the witness has used a derogatory term is >> for the purposes of the non zulu speaking people that are important. Can you just tell me the term that he's been complaining about? Then I can censure the witness if necessary.
Um, my lord, can we have a second, please?
>> Yes. Yes, you can confirm. I'd like to I'd like to know the >> Can I can I assist my limit?
>> Because I'm not speaking. My Zulu is quite limited. But I can understand.
stood up and you complained.
>> You stood up, you complained that the witness is using a derogatory term.
Hence, the court asked you where did you get your instructions from? Because accuse number three and four are sitting there. They've not communicated with you. So, it's your attorney.deed. Now, your attorney must assist you and tell you what is the derogatory term that he is referring to which he has taken umbrage to.
My lord, if you would just be with me.
>> No problem. Take your time.
>> My attorney says he's not um he's his um home language. It's not Zulu. He's the pronunciation that he will use is not might not be um perfect Zulu. So all he needed to do was to confer he agrees with the wording that was used by Mr. Chalking. He prefers because his vernacular is indeed is zulu that he's better suited to pronounce the words but he's already placed it under here.
I don't want a complaint to be raised against a witness when you are unable to place the substance of it on record.
Your you stood up and said he used a derogatory term and for you to have made that particular submission your attorney would have instructed you. All the court is asking please tell me the term that he is taking umbrage to so that I can censure them with this.
>> I don't want people to stand up and just project for the sake of it.
>> But lord with the greatest of respect I don't project for the sake of it. I'm a creature of instructions. I get instructions from my attorney and my duty to this court and my duty to my client, my duty to my attorney is to convey those instructions and place it on record.
>> Yes, thank you so much for that. What is the derogatory ter for the >> Mr. I'm I'm busy with Miss I'd like to finish with then I'll come to you.
>> My instructions are my Lord the manner in which the witness conveys the answer is in a derogatory manner. He says that he's supposed to and your law should know that better than I do being the presiding officer. You supposed as a witness to answer questions, not to throw questions back and cajul um in in your answer giving. But the manner in which he speaks, my attorney confers or or concurs with what Mr. Chalki placed on record. He says the manner it comes across is that it's derogatory in the manner in which you speak to council.
the way you answer it. Your law says that you >> the cause of complaint is the delivery.
>> It's the delivery and the manner in which it's dealt with.
>> So it's the delivery not not a specific term.
>> It's not a specific term. Again, we don't have the benefit with the greatest of respect of your lordship who knows is. So if if your lordship um would allow us we must be allowed we put your lordship this to make um to object to certain evidence and place on records issues that we feel is important to be placed on. It's not the first time the law would have noticed the manner in which this witness keeps on answering questions. He does not like to be confronted with evidence and the record will speak for itself. Not only will the record, the transcript speaks for itself, but his camera is important.
They would show the demeanor and the conduct of the witness towards being asked questions in this particular case.
May support >> Mr. your worship. I wouldn't say my lord as the court pleases.
>> I wouldn't say that the phrase is delocative but I would say it is disrespect more especially in the context in which it is said and I would still say it again much as this witness wants to be respected he owes a respect to us. So can I just for the purposes of the nonizuru speaking people can you just interpret the phrase which he used which is causing a bit of a challenge on the record which which is the phrase that he used that is problematic >> the phrase that he used.
>> Yeah. Read the phrase out and interpret it for us.
what it will mean will be that none of my business that would be the direct translation and my concern my lord is unfortunately my learned colleague is not zuru conversent but if the witness speaks to my learned colleague in the manner that he speaks to him and that would that would be tantamount to the manner in which he would speak to me and that is why I've got the duty to also protect you know h the integrity of my Leonard colleagues because I would also want to enjoy that very same integrity.
>> Mr. Interpreter, can you please can you please just interpret the term that is biting?
What is the term that is causing so much of trouble?
>> Actually, my lord, it's is it's like an idiom. Yes, >> if I may explain it, but I think I did interpreted it.
>> That is none of my business. It's what he said.
>> That's the word he used.
>> That's the word of his business.
>> Yeah, it's none of his business.
>> In terms of the language that you are used to, is that derogatory?
>> No, I'm not talking.
Oh, not so so my lord but the answer is coming across as being disrespect >> I think that's what that's where the problem is >> exactly and the context in which it is said >> maybe the about the context but initially what he meant is that it was none of his business it's an idom we can explain it in many ways My lord, I just want to ask, you know, because I I elected to testify in a zul.
I just want to know is it a sin for me to elect to testify in Zulu because I said it on the onset that I wanted to testify in now when I'm testifying now people get lost the court has listened to this particular thank you I'm grateful for my colleagues coming Thank you.
>> But if I may say the objection by one of the colleagues was there was a derogatory ter that council has not been able to place the derogatory terra.
What the has noted from the objection both by council for is that umbrage has been taken with respect of the deliveries the manner in which this witnesses respond. Good.
Thank you. Good. At the end of the day, it is the duty of this court to be able to make findings in relation to the credibility and the honesty.
Good.
the meaning of hand just because we've had between the lesson you confirm that you are still under.
Yes, mate. I'm still under oath to tell the truth as it is.
>> Thank you, my lord. So, Mr. Taylor, the police arrived at the scene. They corded over cordoned off the crime scene and they started collecting evidence and they requested you to convey to them what transpired. Is that correct?
Are you able to tell us what the processes the processes are that you observed and the police followed whilst you were prison?
Even if I cannot explain it explicit as I am not a police officer.
I think that they follow the rules that they were supposed to do because they had to cut off the scene.
whatever cartridges >> and then they come again to collect the span cartridges and also and then they asked me of how the scene unfold.
Then I I did explain to them Then I was asked then when the incident took place whether I was wearing a bullet vest or bulletproof. Then I said yes I was wearing it.
Then they ask me the bullets that I have spent and I say to them I spend 15 bullets.
I was taken to the office and I was given some water so that I can cool off.
Anything else?
>> Maybe I will remember if I can remember.
I will rise >> after they have collected the spin cartridges. Were there still any cartridges left?
I'm not sure. Were you there until the police?
Yes, I was there, but I was taken out from the scene area to let the the police do their job. You testify that you took photos of this. Is that correct?
Yes.
was >> I did not do anything because I lost my phone.
>> What did you take photos of like mirror cover?
>> It was a side mirror cover >> and the broken pieces of window.
>> Did you anything else?
>> Quality.
Nothing else. I don't remember.
>> Did you tell the police that you've taken your own photos?
After they left whilst they were there.
Isn't it that you took the photos before they arrived?
No, I did not.
No, I I took the photos after they left after they after they said that now the tape can be removed and give the motor vehicles access to pass.
>> Okay. So apart from yourself and the shooters in the BMW, >> were there any other person that was shooting?
I No, it was only me and the occupants of the BMW.
>> So you testified that there were three occupants in the BMW.
>> Yes.
>> The sitting arrangement there was the driver and the occupants.
What were the sitting arrangements with regards to the occupants?
BMW right seat.
>> It was a driver because he was a driver.
He was sitting on the driver's seat and the two occupants of how they were sitting there.
I don't know. I can repeat the very same term that I've used before.
>> None of my business.
>> Dangerous territory. Thank you for the caution.
So, how many people ellighted from the BMW?
First time two people and they started shooting >> and then also they they were followed by the driver. The driver was in the position of a firearm and he started shooting >> the driver.
>> The driver.
>> So all three occupants were at some stage outside the BMW.
Yes.
>> Can you just bear with me?
>> Okay.
So, how many AK47 rifles did you observe? AK47.
>> So, each occupant AK-47 AK-47.
>> Yes.
So, any any person stated in a statement or will come and testify that there was R5 rifle and a pistol involved during the shootout. You wouldn't agree with that?
I I I won't know that. How did he observe it?
>> How long did you say that the incident itself?
I said it before I don't want to incriminate myself about time but it did not took long time for now as you know as you know that you know when the criminals arrive you know they want make things quickly because they are not there maybe to to shoot a movie.
>> Okay. So should should I take your answer as you do not wish to incriminate yourself with God?
So, >> it's not a question of me not to >> It was around 11:00 to to to 11:00.
>> I don't want to uh to say that I don't want to comment on time. It's just that I don't want to to say something that I'm not sure of. But I would say that it was around 11:00.
straight doesn't just wants to know from your he wants to know take a short term.
It was around mostly.
Yes. Yes, m I I do understand. I think the court is saying to me that it's not a trap and then maybe I'm willing to answer because my lord you know the lawyers you know sometimes they can be cheeky and they come back to you hard you see the challenge you may perhaps face at the end of the day council stand up and say to the court I asked the witness a simple question and the witness was refusing to answer that question therefore the court must Executive has 6 minutes 5 minutes somewhere there if you are saying that yes then the court promised to protect me I would say approximately it was 6 minutes 5 minutes >> I see thank you that was not in the middle >> estimation am I correct >> we had to get a estimation >> that's an estimation >> Mr. Mr. Cle um I have in my position disclosed by the state three different affidavit that you disclosed.
>> Yes.
>> Are you now speaking English that you understand English?
>> Yes.
I I've said before this call that you know I do know English but a half done English. Medium. You said medium medium.
>> Medium. Yes.
>> Yes. I said medium.
>> Yes.
>> So you opposed to three different affidavit. The first affidavit you deposed to was on the 11th of August 2022. Do you remember that?
112.
That's correct. Then again on the 16th of August 2022.
>> That's correct.
>> And then again you post an affidav on the 24th of June 2025.
>> 24une 2025.
>> Yes.
>> That is more than 3 years after the incident.
Yes.
>> Why was it necessary for you to make the third affidavit three more than 3 years after the fact? Were you told after 3 years?
No.
Uh I would say um the investigation officer.
I was approached by investigation officer to make some investigations. So I wouldn't turn him down if he wanted information from me.
>> What did he say? What did he needed?
What did he need more than what he already had in your other two days?
>> I I I don't know what he was looking for because I've already provided >> two. He didn't tell you.
Ah, no.
Okay. So, you just bear with me. Um, just requesting.
Let me in the meantime show you the progress for sake of progress. Are you looking for the question? I'm looking for the original, but I thought I'll just show him a copy in the meantime.
Yes, I've already requested it.
>> I am busy with it. M proceed. I'll also show the request.
>> I don't know the number of objections that are coming.
>> I don't hear any about authenticity of that document.
>> It makes sense. Let's roll with the original.
>> Sorry about the application here.
is requesting a confin to discuss with anyone.
Understood my lord.
>> And how long?
>> 3 minutes. No problem. You take your time. You give the state the opportunity to be able to get the documents together. So we let we stand for a few minutes.
The court wanted me.
>> Yes, he did. Thank you.
court orderly. Um I know from previous experience that there is there is a time limit as to up to when the court can be in session before the transport needs to take place. So I think we just need to establish that.
Oh, okay. So, it's not an issue.
>> Oh, it's not an issue. It's not an issue. My >> apparently >> I think we agreed that we >> Yeah, I heard somewhere was saying what was he saying?
>> No, my lord. Um, no. 4:00 is fine.
>> That's what we agreed to.
>> Yeah.
Yes, Mr. >> Unless there's a problem with a with a transport, we will make certain compromises.
>> Okay.
>> You confirm that you are still under your former oath to speak the truth.
The witness confirmed that he's still under oath to tell the truth.
You okay?
I'm okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Uh just for clarity purposes, did you struck any of the occupants of the BMW?
I'm shy.
I think so.
>> What do you mean you think so?
I would say because when we are shooting at a motor vehicle, you never know whether the bullet can enter the car and injure someone or an occupant.
>> Was there anything one of the any of the occupants occupants did that made you realize that you might have struck one of them?
At the time when they were driving off, there's one occupant who was entering the motor vehicle while it was in motion. And at the time I was also I was shooting. Anything he did make you made you to think that you struck him?
>> Yeah. Like sounds. Ah. Yeah.
>> This is a sound that he made. Ah.
>> Okay. So the last affidavit that we have discussed now that was obtained from you by uh Sergeant you remember on the 24th of June 2020 the year 2025 >> 2025 >> do you Remember >> Yes, I do remember.
>> Can you identify the signature at the bottom? First page, the second page as well as the third page.
>> My signature.
>> Yes.
>> It's my signature. I said that the statement was attacked by Sergeant >> I I think so. So you had this interview with Sergeant Stori, he typed out this the statement and after you familiarized yourself with the contents, you signed the 20 20 2022.
>> Yes, I did. I did sign it.
2022.
Yes, my lord. But yes, my but the date is changed there. It says 2022.
Okay, let's proceed. We we'll get to that. Okay. Now, you you even had copies in your possession this morning. Did you have a copy of this statement in your possession as well?
>> The statement.
>> Yes.
>> And you read through the statement. You refreshed your memory before you came to testify.
court.
>> Yes. Because I wanted to help court.
>> Yes. And even now you confirm the correctness of the statement whilst you are this particular statement.
>> Yes. apart now from the date that you've referred us.
>> Is that correct?
instead of 22.
Yes, there might be some discrepancies because now the this was typed by a human being and there can be a human being error >> because you can see there he made an error by typing 2020 instead of 2022.
Mr. Mr. Taylor, you read through the statement before you came to testify.
Immediately upon confrontation, you said the problem is the the typo of 2020 instead of 2022. Is there anything else that you don't agree with in that state?
20202 that one will pick it up after we started reading this document.
>> Did you not read it before you came to testify?
>> Let me just place the following on record. Mr. um um and we've had more than one consultation and we missed the date but before he test came to testify um yesterday um he brought that date to my attention and I brought it to the defense's attention so I don't know what is the issue around the date it is clearly a human typographical error it's been corrected and um I don't understand what is the issue about it >> my lord With respect, I think my learning colleague is misunderstanding my line of cross examination because it's nothing to do with the date. I concede I concede what she's telling me.
So I just want to move try to move on to the rest of the state, not the date if it pleases you.
>> Okay.
>> Yes. So >> perhaps may be given the opportunity.
>> Yes. And there's anything that he specifically attention.
>> Do you like to read the statement and bring to attention?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. I Bethwell.
>> No, no. Read the statement for yourself.
>> Oh. and then tell us whether you're happy >> okay >> with the contents of the statement whether there's anything that is not correct Done. Touch them.
Are you happy with the contents?
>> Yes, I'm happy >> except for date.
>> For the date? Yes. But apart from the date, you're happy with the content.
>> Paragraph four. You will agree with me.
May I for the court's purpose perhaps at this stage submit the statement and provide a copy to the witness or would it be in order if I only submit the statement after cross examination?
>> Yes.
original to the court. Another original to the court.
>> Paragraph 4. You will agree you you you stated on the very same night at about 22:45 I saw two vehicles that arrived and parked in front of our guard room at the parking area. That is correct.
Paragraph.
>> Yes, at car park.
>> Let's go to the second page on seven.
Lord, I've been made aware of the fact that there was maybe a misunderstanding in the interpretation. The statement reads 2245.
So I don't know if this was correct.
>> 22. Yeah. 2245. Yeah. Qu 11. Yeah.
Which paragraph 7 page number two. I'll take you to the third sentence, the second line.
Or let me rather start with the the second sentence. I shot paragraph seven shot total of 15 rounds towards the suspect. Correct.
15.
>> I saw three suspects that were in the BMW and only two came out of the vehicle during the shooting.
Is that correct?
>> Yes, it's correct. So can we then take it that your earlier evidence that all three of the of the occupants came out and fired shots is incorrect.
Yes. The two alerted from the motor vehicle they start shooting. After the motor vehicle come to a standstill the third person also alerted from the motor vehicle and started shooting. Did you say that in your statement?
>> Is that in my statement?
>> I put it to you sir that you put in your statement that only two came out of the vehicle during the shooting.
>> Meaning that only two are lighted from the vehicle and not three as per your previous evidence.
It's one thing.
that I said that two people alerted from the motor vehicle and they started shooting and the third person also alerted from the motor vehicle and he started shooting also. What's the different? What makes it different?
>> Put it to you that your evidence your statement is different from your evidence and I put it to you that you materially contradicted your statement.
Do you have any comment?
No, my statement is not contradicting my viva evidence, but the judge will judge on that. You don't want to explain to us why it's you deny that it's >> the same.
Let me show you the second statement. I will request this honorable court to accept the statement as an exhibit.
Please issue. Do you have a number?
>> Uh, it should be exhibit A. It's the first witness, the first statement.
>> We don't.
>> Um, no. No, my lord. Um, did we provide the court with an index, a a blank index?
My lord, I can provide the port with an index.
I've left it blank for this specific situation where we haven't um numbered the exhibits yet.
>> That is correct. So my lord, so exhibit A is in the typed version. Am I correct?
>> Yes, correct. May 27.
Let me show you the second statement that you've made or rather the very first statement.
Do you identify your signature?
>> Yes, it is my signature.
>> Do you have a copy of this statement as well?
Statement.
Is this A6?
>> I do not have your copy of this one.
Would you like to read through the statement and see whether you're happy with the content?
Yeah.
>> Are you happy with the countries?
>> Okay, we are traveling.
I'm not happy about the content.
>> I'm not happy about the time >> because it's not my handwriting. This one >> you know this is not my handwriting. I have only attached my signature.
So I see on the 11th of August 2022, Sergeant took the statement from you.
11 August 2022.
>> Yes. Correct.
Now, if you say you're not happy with the statement, why did you put your signature on the statement if you were not happy with the contest?
to 2025 like approximately to 11.
>> Yes. Um even in the first statement we had a problem about the date. Even here the time is not correct because this incident did not took place around 2025. It took place around somewhere to 11 around 11.
Just refer me to the point the portion that you are not happy with.
>> 2025.
>> 2025. The time there is pointing at the time.
>> So the time at about 2025 you are not happy with that.
>> Yes.
>> So but with the rest of the statement you are happy with the contents.
>> Yes. And you confirm the contents of the statement on the oath even now. Correct.
Right.
>> Yes. Correct.
>> Let's just proceed to the eighth line from the very same page from uh 2025.
When the time is given is 2025, it starts with I don't know. Do you see that?
Do you see that, sir?
Let me read it to you.
Can you Are you able to follow?
>> I don't I don't after the one.
>> I don't know. It starts with I don't know what time >> still paragraph.
If you could come closer, I don't want to interrupt, but it maybe my can just indicate to us a what is equilib.
>> I think I do. A6 bracket capital A6 capital. Yes.
>> All right. So, I need you just to follow just this last aspect.
>> I don't know what time it was. Once again councelor you covered have you got that?
>> No lord because what we've got both Mr. me and myself meets totally different.
That is the issue that we've got.
>> One second. Conc.
What is the date of that statement?
>> Date of the statement is the 11th of August 2022. My instructing attorney has provided my co-consel with a copy.
>> We did not that was not disclosed to us.
We we don't have it. We've got a different one um that is marked A6, but the one that we've just been handed is not a document that we've been that's been disclosed or discussed yet.
>> Um my lord, I I I've disclosed what I have. So if it if it wasn't received by the defense, I've got no explanation for that. My learned friend um at Katrin has it. So it's strange to me that the other council don't have it.
>> Mr. Ch, do you by any chance have A61 >> A6 capital A?
>> We I cannot really comment because we did not print uh for us. We did not print the entire documents that are not relevant to our case.
>> But it's it was given to you in electronic form.
>> Yes. Certain statements were given to us that >> so this time you're not aligning yourself.
>> I do. I do. You told me that they h like this evidence doesn't really concern me yet.
>> Well, Lord, maybe just for the record um so that it reflects we got disclosure right in the beginning. The disclosure that my learned friends got was much later than our disclosure. So obviously the only inference to be drawn is at the time we got disclosure this document was not part of the bundle that was disclosed to us. May >> my lord we can provide it now. It is it is a two-page threepage document.
>> If you can quickly just email it to council we can >> I unfortunately I don't have email facilities here but I do have a memory stick my >> I have a memory stick that I can >> provided with my copy to council. Are you comfortable with a copy that is given to you by Mr. I'll use this one in the meant I will share.
Thank you.
>> There you see an application my lord from the accused person from the witness.
My this is now you know surprises me in such high court of the you know people are giving evidence in in pieces some of them they do have document some of them they do not have document >> so I'm I'm with you. Yes, I'm there.
>> So, let me read to you. I don't know what time it was as I would use my cell phone to check time and we are not allowed to carry cell phones whilst on duty.
That's correct.
>> So, in stark contrast to your previous statement stating that the incident transpired at 20 22 45 in the evening, in this affidavit, you state that you did not know what the time was.
224.
>> I did explain the time issue and I explain it explicit.
>> It's now like now we are going around.
No, you did not. Let me refer to refer you to the portion that you say that you have explained. So it's the third line, paragraph 3, misinterpreter. The third line, it starts with at about 2025.
>> Which I complained.
>> The third line.
>> Which one?
>> This one. The very same statement.
>> Yes. Very same statement. Paragraph three.
>> Yes.
>> Fourth line. At about 2025.
Are you with me?
>> This is the portion that Whitler has explained.
>> Yes. Yes. At about 2025. Yes. I complained to Sergeant Security Officer Mazibuku about the malfunctioning of my radio and told and he told me that he would bring the radio to me.
Yes.
>> Yes. That's what you explain, not the fact that you didn't know what time the incident transpired.
>> That's what I'm referring you to.
It's all about the radio here. It's not It's not about the incident.
Sir, it won't assist for me to argue with you. I'll leave it for argument. I would just want to put to you that on minor aspects your evidence appears to be dishonest and you are not taking this court into your confidence for reasons unknown to us.
>> We have on what basis I need to object to this.
On what basis does my learned friend say that the witness is dishonest?
because there's more than one interpretation as to the differentiation between the affidavits. It there's to say to this witness that he's dishonest is to me disingenous to say the least.
>> Let me rephrase and say that you've materially contradicted yourself in your evidence in court and statements stated under oath.
There's no contradiction here because now here about this time we talking about the radio.
when I went to pick up as the board pleases I think uh the aid speaks for itself. I'll request the honorable court to accept it as an exhibit and I propose that it will be to be marked exhibit.
This Jesus. Thank you my Lord.
Put you on the minor aspect.
Not anything about the ninja.
Can I leave that for argument?
>> Otherwise, I'll have to argue with the witness.
I suppose it will not be interjecting.
You want to start?
>> No, I can start tomorrow.
That's the code piece is closed.
Okay.
Okay.
I see my client's raising his hand as my approach.
Thank you my lord. I have been asked by my client to bring to the court's attention that they are finding it extremely difficult during the time that they in court the entire day as they do not get breakfast before they come. They get a very limited meal for lunch and they then arrive at prison too late for having supper. They are therefore very limited in food that they are able to consume due to the fact that we are sitting on a daily basis. It's not an isolated situation. The request is where the family can be allowed to bring them at least breakfast in the morning where they can last.
That request I suggest must be directed to the department services.
I think uh I think they have their own rules and regulations both >> they have endeavored to do so. My lord they has they have indicated that They have only the lunch that they provide to them. They showed it to us. It's a very small portion and that's the only food that they get on a daily basis for the entire week. What you can do is correational services.
There's nobody present in court from correctional services. They normally dressed in the brown uniforms and the only people present here are police officers themselves.
My lord uh with your indulgence um accuse number one also indicated to me that that is his position as well just to join course with a request uh brought to your attention by Mr. running on a daily basis hasn't come back to the council because the council system comes to date with >> us.
I suppose the accused person are being by members of the South African police services and I couldn't who is responsible for uh being in charge of the transport of the accused from Can we perhaps maybe when I take the agendment can I just maybe ask councelor quickly with the member from the South African police services just to see me chambers. Let's see if we can reach some kind of an agreement.
Is that okay?
>> Ladies and gentlemen, you may rise.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Because the people in the gallery simply stood up and we have sent them with them to accused the accused we have run out of sitting court hours which necessitates the matter to be.
The court has noted the cause of complaint raised by the accused in relation to the nourishment that they are receiving. To that extent, the court will then as soon as the matter is postponed for tomorrow, engage your council as well as the person in charge from the South African Police Services that's responsible for your transport to see if we can make some kind of an arrangement if possible. Under the circumstances, your matter then is postponed back to the High Court of South Africa, Ken Division, Johannesburg, sitting here at the High Court Journal of Court number 4 F to witness day the 22nd day of July 2026 at 09 hours 30 or soon thereafter as the matter shall be heard. Accuse number one, 2 and three. Gentlemen, you are in custody. You shall remain in custody until then. Accuse number four and five.
You are on bail. Your bail is extended according to the same conditions as previously and you are warned to return to this court tomorrow 4 at 09 hours 30 or soon thereafter is the matter shall be the state Mr. Bethwell Tir thank you so much for the agenda.
Uh sadly so we are unable to have completed your evidence which necessitates you to return here tomorrow. You are also warned to return to the high court of South Africa counting division Johannesburg sitting there at the high court 4f on witness day 22nd day of July 2026 at 09 hours 30 or soon there is remain in attendance until you are exposed for you to return and or to remain in attendance may result in the staying blind of your arrest. Last point before you interpret, you are still under cross examination and you are not to discuss the nature of High Court of South Africa of Yeah.
understood many can I take it it's common knowledge that when accused persons are being brought in prison during the course of their trial they ordinarily not return to their sons they stay in another holding area and if they return there slightly late they don't they even miss them evening meals so they kept in that holding area for the duration of the time that they're in court which from the court's experience creates a bit of a challenge for so I think to that extent just confirm with your clients if that is the position so that when you do approach the the South African police services we've got proper information to see how we can try to assist >> I have confirmed that with my client my lord and he has indicated to me that they do not get dinner when they arrive it's simply too late so >> okay good um then I shall see the accused persons Thank you very much.
Council, I'll see you for a few moments in chambers relating to the specific aspect. Uh sir, would you please also just come to chuss?
Okay.
No, I omitted this one that is still under it.
>> Thank you. Having no further take your journey. I shall see.
All rise in court.
Related Videos
54:37
Law
Session 5: Law, Genomic Medicine & Health Equity Conference/Webcast -- Dr. Consuelo Wilkins
UMNconsortium
234 views•2019-01-02
24:55
Law
Consider This: ICJ Climate Ruling — Holding Nations to Account
astroawani
307 views•2025-08-11
14:10
Law
The Third Gender I Legal Recognition of Intersex Community
KBCChannel1News
259 views•2023-07-09
3:52
Law
What Are Proceedings In Court? - CountyOffice.org
CountyOfficeLaw
129 views•2025-03-06
46:58
Law
Understanding the EU Electronic Evidence Package | Interview with Cristos Velasco | EP 7
DejanKosutic
816 views•2025-04-22
10:13
Law
8 Violations in ONE Day? Judge West Gives Ultimate Wake-Up Call
LawAndLogicTV
263 views•2026-04-26
2:22
Law
United States v. Navajo Nation Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
QuimbeeDotCom
589 views•2023-09-21
27:07
Law
Young Professionals: CPR Part 36 Offers with Harry Dyson
kingschambers4859
902 views•2024-04-30
Trending
5:41
Business
YouTube Disabled Our Comments Again (Are Any Humans Left at YouTube?)
SpecialBooksbySpecialKids
39K views•2026-07-21
5:07
Philosophy
One Must Imagine Sisyphus Happy
vlogbrothers
61K views•2026-07-21
12:30
Business
The Downfall of OnePlus!
techwiser
65K views•2026-07-21
30:21
History
The REAL History Behind The Odyssey Will BLOW Your Mind! It's NOT a Myth!
metatronyt
20K views•2026-07-21